wtf happened before the big bang?

[king of the world]

i was high one day and was thinking about the big bang and stuff.
and thought what happened before the big bang? scientist always talk about the big bang and everything that happened after that, but none talk about before the big bang?

[cannabisis4for20]

No one knows, yet.

[Canuckofithaca]

i dunno if theyll ever find out

[king of the world]

do you think that there was life before the big bang?

[psteve]

Dinner and a show.:pimp:

[cannabisis4for20]

do you think that there was life before the big bang?

The question just takes you around in circles, if there was life, what was before that? If nothing then how was the life created, etc.

[Gatekeeper777]

Current therie is that the universe recycles itself.

[king of the world]

if scientist are so confident in the big bang then they should know what caused it, and if they should know what caused it then they should know what there was before the big bang. right?

[Gatekeeper777]

if scientist are so confident in the big bang then they should know what caused it, and if they should know what caused it then they should know what there was before the big bang. right?

they do know
this was part of a therie I submitted to JPL and NASA.
Its turning heads.

A Recycled Universe: Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C55B5-C29B-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF)

:rastasmoke::hippy:

[Zannies]

idk, no one will ever know, because according to science, there has to be a beggining. according to religion there is no beggining...i don't believe in either. i believe in confusion.

[ChronicJoint]

idk, no one will ever know, because according to science, there has to be a beggining. according to religion there is no beggining...i don't believe in either. i believe in confusion.

uh, you got it backwards there.

there is no beginning in science

and religeon has a beginning

[Gatekeeper777]

The beggining is explained using string therie.

[cannabisis4for20]

uh, you got it backwards there.

there is no beginning in science

and religeon has a beginning

No, he had it right.

In religion God just always was and in science the big bag was the beginning.

When the truth is no one really knows the true beginning or how it happened. Don't be so sure no one will ever know though. Who knows how advanced are race will become. Probably not in any of our lifetimes but still.

[NextLineIsMine]

Current therie is that the universe recycles itself.


Very slowly but very surely gravity is pulling everything back together again, eventually all matter will join a giant clump that will keep gaining density until it explodes out again like the last big bang

[Thepossumdance]

gatekeeper i really enjoyed reading that article thx...

not sure if im on board with the cyclical universe idea, but i'm at least seriously considering it

[Oneironaut]

What do you mean, before the Big Bang? The Big Bang was the moment that time was created. There is no "before" the beginning of time. Words like "before" and "after" only make sense within the timeline of the universe, and cease to be meaningful at the beginning point of time and (if there is one) the end point of time. It's like asking what's further south than the South Pole. Nothing. That's as far south as it goes.


Current therie is that the universe recycles itself.
Current theory...for a small minority of scientists. It's a possibility, but it's now thought more likely that the universe will just continue to expand without end.

[Ynohtna]

I thought it was all moving away? Something to do with a dark matter, or dark energy they discovered or something like that. Kind of ruined the pulling it back together theory... Might be wrong, been a while since I read that.

I personally think the universe is just a tide pool on the beach of the cosmos.... :thumbsup:

[Gatekeeper777]

What do you mean, before the Big Bang? The Big Bang was the moment that time was created. There is no "before" the beginning of time. Words like "before" and "after" only make sense within the timeline of the universe, and cease to be meaningful at the beginning point of time and (if there is one) the end point of time. It's like asking what's further south than the South Pole. Nothing. That's as far south as it goes.


Current theory...for a small minority of scientists. It's a possibility, but it's now thought more likely that the universe will just continue to expand without end.

HMMMMMMMM.. If you keep walking souh in a strait line and walk past the south pole you will still be heading in the same direction but north will be your detintion.
There is to much matter in the universe or that to happen. We will be clumped together. The local group( a chain of abot 50 glaxies that are close to us) are colliding an cmping together. The mlkway isheaded to the Vegan super cluster a super glaxy made up of about 1000 galaxies.
Now thats alot of graviational pull. We will arive there in about 5 bllion years or so. when all the known matter is clumped together including the pull of black holes that strip molicules bare all compress together there will be another dawn in the universe. Another big bang.

I submitted the therie and the nerds did the numbers.
From what I am told this therie akes E=mc2 look like preschool stuff.

[Gatekeeper777]

I thought it was all moving away? Something to do with a dark matter, or dark energy they discovered or something like that. Kind of ruined the pulling it back together theory... Might be wrong, been a while since I read that.

I personally think the universe is just a tide pool on the beach of the cosmos.... :thumbsup:
matter attracts gravitationally, not repel.

[king of the world]

The mlkway is headed to the Vegan super cluster a super galaxy made up of about 1000 galaxies.Now thats alot of graviational pull. We will arive there in about 5 bllion years or so.

isnt the sun suposed to blow up in 5 billion years?

[Gatekeeper777]

isnt the sun suposed to blow up in 5 billion years?

yes but the milky way will still be here hurdling through space towards the vegan super cluster.
SOL and Earth dont mea fly shit on a univeral scale it exsisted before humanity and will after. right up untill the next BOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

[king of the world]

yes but the milky way will still be here hurdling through space towards the vegan super cluster.
SOL and Earth dont mea fly shit on a univeral scale it exsisted before humanity and will after. right up untill the next BOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

do you really think mankind will still be around 5 billion years from now or beyond?

[Ynohtna]

matter attracts gravitationally, not repel.

Right... I was thinking of Dark Energy


About 22% (of the universe) is thought to be composed of dark matter. The remaining 74% is thought to consist of dark energy.

Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.

That's from wikipedia... just thought I'd look it up right quick. Most of it's just theory though.

How do you do that quote thing saying who it's from?

[cannabisis4for20]

Very slowly but very surely gravity is pulling everything back together again, eventually all matter will join a giant clump that will keep gaining density until it explodes out again like the last big bang

How do you know the planets aren't still moving from the big bang instead of being pulled back together?

[cannabisis4for20]

Here's a theory I just pulled out from under my hat...

Perhaps universes are what happen at the singularity of black holes. Let's say our Big Bang was caused by the formation of a black hole. Everything that gets sucked into it from the other universe is... exploded into what we now call our universe. What do you think? ;)

That could be but then you have to ask yourself how the matter from that other universe got there in the first place.

[cannabisis4for20]

How do you do that quote thing saying who it's from?

You hit the quote button at the bottom right hand side of the person's post. How did you quote the wikipedia thing?

[LazySmoking420]

Only thing that makes sense to me is some sort of Creator and we're the Creation.

[Gatekeeper777]

That could be but then you have to ask yourself how the matter from that other universe got there in the first place.
by the banes hitting together.

[cannabisis4for20]

Black holes. The original black hole was created once the nothingness grew too heavy and collapsed. Now there are an infinite number of black holes. How does nothing have weight? Because it once existed by itself. A lot of nothing would be needed to create a black hole.

Meh... it's as believable as religion in any case. ;)

I'll definitely give you that. I just didn't completely understand what you were trying to say at first.

[Melkane]

The Big Bang is the beginning of the Universe as we know it with our current laws of physics. What happened before that we don't know because we don't have the physics or any evidence to explain the before. We at this point can only tell what's happened since...there is a few theories like String/M Theory but there no way to prove/test those theories at present.

The universe is expanding, not contracting and it's speeding up. There isn't enough matter in the universe (not even enough dark matter) to reverse the universe and pull everything back. The universe will keep on expanding and eventually it will reach a point where there will be not enough of the appropriate gases to form stars, the universe will go dark.

[cannabisis4for20]

Only thing that makes sense to me is some sort of Creator and we're the Creation.

But how did the creator get here?

[MadSativa]

The beggining is explained using string therie.


What do you mean, before the Big Bang? The Big Bang was the moment that time was created. There is no "before" the beginning of time. Words like "before" and "after" only make sense within the timeline of the universe, and cease to be meaningful at the beginning point of time and (if there is one) the end point of time. It's like asking what's further south than the South Pole. Nothing. That's as far south as it goes.


Current theory...for a small minority of scientists. It's a possibility, but it's now thought more likely that the universe will just continue to expand without end.



Before big bang heres the low down...string theroy is now obsolte in a way their are 11 strings as we thought now we have theroized there is a membrane. this is called M Theroy, this theroy has surpased string theroy and now makes all forces in the univers make sence. In M theroy it is belived that the big bang is happening alot and in different time and space (dimentions) M theroy is very new as like 2-3 years old it is a very exciting time right now in Astro and bio physics. M theroy explains everything from magik to science, math to religon. M theory can stand for the Mad theroy or the Magik theroy or membrane theroy, To answer your question of what happend befor the big bang could be and endless possiblitys according to M theroy. but we now belive strongly in M theory Drs specializing in string theory once shunned the one DR. who belived in a multiple strings in stead of just one string (string theroy), now it is the One DR's work who help us relized their are mulptile strings infact 11 we belive, and they are woven togeather (so to say) to form a membrane. Vary interesting stuff for those physics majors or physisyst. We now know cause it has been proven buy a very attractive female Dr. that we only feel small effects of gravity, a way to think about it is we only feel the ripples of gravity and not the whole wave. I always thought how can we jump so high when were sping so fast on earth and earth around the sun? Acclimation can only go so far until we turn to liquid or mush from the G forces we shoud be experiancing. M theroy google it look it up very new stuff very classified buy some

[Bob the Awesome]

I don't know, I question if there ever was a big bang. I mean, yes, the universe is expanding exponentially, but that doesn't necessarily mean the universe never was. If you look at the graph of an exponential function, you'll see it never actually hits 0, instead approaching 0 infinitely (an asymptote, like this Image:Exp.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Exp.svg))

And since, who said it was a bang? It seems just as likely that it exploded as that it appeared one day and just expanded without the explosion.

And I don't claim I'm an expert or even correct, just trying to throw some ideas out.

[MadSativa]

M theroy explain how gasses are made and how black hole function it is all very new but very quickly making logical sence, and it was called big bang because it was just that a big bang; M theroy also explianis how this were to come alsoo in M theroy there are very dangerous things that can happen which most do not even think about such as particles which move so fast they would vaporize all gasses on our planet.

[txbuddz]

haha i would always start tripping out in science class whenever we would talk out about this stuff

[vej33]

because from any point in space, you will see the planets and stars and space moving AWAY from that point. aka, the universe is most definitely expanding, not being pulled back together. have you ever seen an explosion UN-explode and neatly compact back into itself?

i haven't. the big bang prooobably won't ever become the big suck.

i just read that article about the cyclicing universe. it sounded really good, i'd already read stuff about the Branes and whatnot, but not about our universe eventually expanding to the point of nothing-ness and starting all over....

but still, if something is cyclical, doesn't that, too, mean that the cycle had to start somewhere?

chickens and eggs are cycles... :) which came first...

[stonerkid1234]

Ok I was watching the universe on the history channel and it said that dark energy is pulling everything apart. The only things being pulled together are our galaxy and the andromada galaxy becuase there so close and the gravity of the two galaxies are pulling them together.. Eventually the uviverse will expand so much that the universe will tear itself apart. It also said that before the big bang there could have been another universe and it just keeps recycling itself.

[gravity420]

my guess, probably a black hole got so massive with space debris, that in sum funky way, pressure similar to a volcano, eventually led to an eruption.

AKA GANG-BANG

[Dr HaZzMatT Esq.]

The King of the world so eloquently layed it out:

wtf happened before the big bang? (All of our great thinkers use "WTF" to poes a question) LMAO!

i was high one day and was thinking about the big bang and stuff.
and thought what happened before the big bang? scientist always talk about the big bang and everything that happened after that, but none talk about before the big bang?


do you think that there was life before the big bang?


if scientist are so confident in the big bang then they should know what caused it, and if they should know what caused it then they should know what there was before the big bang. right?


isnt the sun suposed to blow up in 5 billion years?


do you really think mankind will still be around 5 billion years from now or beyond?

Oh this is Great!
Thanks for the entertainment!!:):):)

I'm printing this up and showing it to my friend who is an Asst. Professor in the Science & Astronomy Dept and at the local University! LMAO!!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[natureisawesome]

The big bang is a lie.

Some fools want you to believe that the universe was all compacted in a tiny little space the size of a pencil eraser, spinning extremely fast, and then boom, it exploded and here we have the universe. Scientists point at how most glaxies spin in a certain direction, this is supposed to be evidence of the big bang.

That fortunately, isn't the case, and there are many many galaxies that spin in the "wrong" direction. It's all very typical of evolution theory, things being where they're not supposed to be.

Bones being where they're not supposed to be.
sedimentary layers being not where they're supposed to be.
Extinct creatures thought to be dead for thousands of years being where they're not supposed to be (alive).
Bones carbon dated dating what they're not supposed to .

I could go on.

But If we look at the evidence according to God's word, things tend to be exactly where they should be a lot more.


The sun is just the right distance from the earth.
The earth has just the right temperature for life (with modest variations).
The planet has just the right gravity.
The earth holds a incredibly sufficient system to support plants and life and recycle energy.
The earth spins around the sun at just the right distance, a little bit farther and we'd freeze, a little bit closer and we'd burn. It also spins at just the right speed.
The geological record fits remarkebly well with the theory of a worldwide flood, so do fossils.
The earth has the right balance of gases in the atmosphere, something incredibly important for animals to survive and flourish.
The earth is full of beutiful incredible plants and animals.
The earth is full of delicious plants and vegetables, abeit that we must work hard to grow because of God's judgement on mankind.

And if that's not enough for you (I'm sure I could go on), how does it feel to know you really are in the center of the universe?

Our galaxy--at the center of the universe after all! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0807tj.asp)


Stop listening to the secular clergy in the classroom, and open your eyes to the truth.

[AustinMan]

What do you mean, before the Big Bang? The Big Bang was the moment that time was created. There is no "before" the beginning of time. Words like "before" and "after" only make sense within the timeline of the universe, and cease to be meaningful at the beginning point of time and (if there is one) the end point of time. It's like asking what's further south than the South Pole. Nothing. That's as far south as it goes.


Current theory...for a small minority of scientists. It's a possibility, but it's now thought more likely that the universe will just continue to expand without end.

Well if their was a big bang and thats when creation happened then isnt their something before that to make the big bang? :stoned:

[natureisawesome]

But how did the creator get here?


Check this out:

If God created the universe, then who created God? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/universe.asp)


I think this is an incredible statement :


".....Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe canâ??t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldnâ??t have any properties until it actually came into existence."

[LuckyG]

But If we look at the evidence according to God's word, things tend to be exactly where they should be a lot more.


The sun is just the right distance from the earth.
The earth has just the right temperature for life (with modest variations).
The planet has just the right gravity.
The earth holds a incredibly sufficient system to support plants and life and recycle energy.
The earth spins around the sun at just the right distance, a little bit farther and we'd freeze, a little bit closer and we'd burn. It also spins at just the right speed.
The geological record fits remarkebly well with the theory of a worldwide flood, so do fossils.
The earth has the right balance of gases in the atmosphere, something incredibly important for animals to survive and flourish.
The earth is full of beutiful incredible plants and animals.
The earth is full of delicious plants and vegetables, abeit that we must work hard to grow because of God's judgement on mankind.

And if that's not enough for you (I'm sure I could go on), how does it feel to know you really are in the center of the universe?

Our galaxy--at the center of the universe after all! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0807tj.asp)


Stop listening to the secular clergy in the classroom, and open your eyes to the truth.

Doesn't it also make sense that the proper environmental conditions happened to arise, and life leapfrogged itself to accommodate to these conditions, adapting when said conditions changed, leaving us (all life on this planet) where we are today?

Just because something is easier to believe doesn't mean that it's right. For every piece of information pointing to this or that theory, there is something indicating against it. There are no absolutes when it comes to the knowledge of the creation of the universe (despite what you or anyone else might believe), just speculations.

[HighTillIDie]

lol you are right earth is PERFECT for life... that's why there isn't life anywhere else we can see, because it is rare... but ya know what... rare isn't too rare in infinity ;)

[cannabisis4for20]

Check this out:

If God created the universe, then who created God? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/universe.asp)


I think this is an incredible statement :


".....Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe canâ??t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldnâ??t have any properties until it actually came into existence."

That articles answers a question with facts that can't be proven. They state that god created the universe, without any facts to back up that statement. But they do not explain who created God, they just say that god always was, without having a beginning. But everything has to have a beginning. Even if it didn't though, you could just use that same argument to say that the matter which separated after the big bang just always was.

[cannabisis4for20]

lol you are right earth is PERFECT for life... that's why there isn't life anywhere else we can see, because it is rare... but ya know what... rare isn't too rare in infinity ;)

OR we adapted to fit the environment that earth provided for us, and we can't live on other planets because we didn't adapt to their conditions, simply because that's not where we ended up.

[vej33]

God was really bad at physics...

if he really did mean to create us all in his image, and make sure that His word was spread far and beyond, why would he create a place where only 1 planet out of an infinite number could sustain the life that would spread "the gospel"?

We are merely the product of convenience, and it's high time (haha i said High time) a lot of people realized that we aren't a big fucking deal.

It's so "ironic" that "God" put us on the only planet that could sustain life, instead of life growing on the only planet that it could inhabit.

Sheesh.

[HighTillIDie]

We are merely the product of convenience, and it's high time (haha i said High time) a lot of people realized that we aren't a big fucking deal.

It's so "ironic" that "God" put us on the only planet that could sustain life, instead of life growing on the only planet that it could inhabit.

Sheesh.



WHY DON"T PEOPLE GET THIS...

NO MAGIC PEOPLE
none
zero
zilch

you are a damn animal, and your closest related species, which we share chemical, biological and behavioral traits... throws poop at one another

[vej33]

word fucking UP HightillIDie!!

lol i get so worked up over this stuff. i hated educational science classes, but i can't get enough of this universe information!!!!!!! XD I LOVE A GOOD DEBATE!

[Sombrero]

Besides the God stuff, people can't explain how something (everything) was created from nothing, and they can't really explain how something is truly infinite. Also, infinity (the Universe) can apparently exist with nothing in it, but if it's nothing, how can it exist? People also have no idea of what creates awareness. And of course time is something without substance, so doesn't really exist.

[enjoi]

Wow, this is seriously one of the best threads, if not the best thread, I have ever read in my entire life. I've been sitting here for over an hour just researching the basics behind these theories, I'm so interested in them. I'm sure I'll eventually give up once it starts getting too hard to comprehend without knowing the math behind it but this has really got me thinking. 4 Star thread.

[Zannies]

Yeah, no human has the mental capacity to accept the concept of something appearing in our eyes from nothing because that defeats the whole idea of our reality. But what if our reality isn't the only reality. which it probably isn't. that probably makes no sense

and the only reason why i think religion would be my thing in the future is to fight the thoughts of afterlife i get. even if its brainwashing, i hate these thoughts and they make me feel like shit. the whole "nothingness, never to be again" makes me feel so bad.

[DarkHairedSativa]

i was high one day and was thinking about the big bang and stuff.
and thought what happened before the big bang? scientist always talk about the big bang and everything that happened after that, but none talk about before the big bang?
Very simply other scientists have proven the theory is bunk.....I am personally a Christian,so I believe in Creation. Read the book Starlight and Time.It's written by a scientist....It's extremely interesting and covers different scientific theories from a science perspective.Pretty cool!!:thumbsup:

[snowblind]

the leading theory on the big bang was that there was one iota more peice of matter than their was anti matter. this therefore cause the spark we know as the big bang, due to an imbalance. it is well documented that the universe is exanding and scientists are working on fining a point of origin using the degredation of energy from the big bang that we still see in the universe in the form of back ground radiation. there are two major theories, that firstly the universe will expand indefinately, this is somewhat beyond the human's minds conception but it is probable.

the other maybe more believable is that the universe will expand till it reaches a criticle mass, then it will implode back upon itself. this would make the universe in all definition behave like a wave, as is light which only behaves this way when observed, so it is likely that the universe will recreate itself but posible on the negative side to complete a cycle, so there may be a dawning where anti matter is prevelant in the universe and all things are the fundemental opposite.

this still begs the question as to what the universe exists within, what plain or body it is contained within. this however is detrient to the fact that the universe is trying to be explained with human logic, when in honesty it is the wrong way of thinking, humans have to be explained within the logic of the universe as it is absolute.

humans have tried for milenia to find a god, answer, body who created, contains or controls the universe, but this is ultimately flawed human logic.

its the kinda question that will make you go insane and will never be answered. dshame really

snowblind

[king of the world]

i know that science and religion dont really mix well ,but i dont think that they are mutually exclusive. i mean think about it for a second, could it not be possible that there is a god, and before the big bang there was nothing, then god "let there be light." which caused the big bang.

so to put it in question form:

do you think that science(big bang and stuff) and religion (god and stuff) are mutually exclusive?

[HighTillIDie]

i know that science and religion dont really mix well ,but i dont think that they are mutually exclusive. i mean think about it for a second, could it not be possible that there is a god, and before the big bang there was nothing, then god "let there be light." which caused the big bang.

so to put it in question form:

do you think that science(big bang and stuff) and religion (god and stuff) are mutually exclusive?

now while this is possible simply because i think it will be another thousand years before man better understands the universe... we still don't know sooo sooo much... and the only way to know any of this is to basically die

BUT the bible and most other religous texts state creation as instant... or instant steps, in short periods of time... so that does wane(sp) on those theories

but really what does it change? i follow the breadcrumbs my life has left me

[make it legal]

I don't think it's truly infinite, meaning that you will never hit a boundary and never see the same thing twice. I like the idea that if you go in one direction long enough, you end up where you were. Many people believe that. Maybe I only like it because it's much easier than comprehending infiniteness.

[natureisawesome]

I don't know how it happens, but sometimes I type things trying to speak the truth in a loving way, and then I read it afterwards and it comes out really agressive. Sorry if it seems that way, it's not my intention.

Lucky G said :


Doesn't it also make sense that the proper environmental conditions happened to arise, and life leapfrogged itself to accommodate to these conditions, adapting when said conditions changed, leaving us (all life on this planet) where we are today?


No. Only life begets life.


For every piece of information pointing to this or that theory, there is something indicating against it.

I've heard statements like this before, and I really think people don't think about this very much. Sometimes the information is inconclusive, and this can be misleading. But what we know for certain, those thing we can scientifically anylize here today, we can compare to theories available and use to build upon those premises. There are many verifable evidences of creation. The problem is, we don't know everything, and for many until they see with thier eyes God creating the universe when he takes them back in time to see it, they won't believe. And maybe they wouldn't believe even then. But if a person discredits creationism because of it's lack of evidence ("were you there???"), then it would indeed prove to be overwhelming hypocricy on the part of the evolutionist.


cannabis4for20 said:


That articles answers a question with facts that can't be proven. They state that god created the universe, without any facts to back up that statement. But they do not explain who created God, they just say that god always was, without having a beginning. But everything has to have a beginning. Even if it didn't though, you could just use that same argument to say that the matter which separated after the big bang just always was.

It does indeed answer with facts. The question you asked was about who created God or where did God comes from. The article directly answers that from a biblical perspective. If God exists, how would you expect someone to show you eternity??? Should I just send it to you in a box or something?

The article pointed out that everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning and therefore must have had a first cause. God does not need a cause because he never had a beginning. He's been forever and ever.

The article also uses other scientific facts to show that the universe cannot expand forever, that according to the laws of thermodynamics the universe cannot continue forever it will slow down to a dead stop, even in an oscillating universe "Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past."

It points out that "there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place" and that "the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction"


Also, very importantly it points out "that Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical â??big crunchâ??.7 As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, â??There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.â?? Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and thatâ??s the end.8"


It points out several other things as well. I guess it's easy for you to blow off the evidence I've provided when the material is off site.

Listen, according to the laws of the universe, according to every scientific experiment ever conducted by a human being, every effect has a cause. But that only applies in the physical universe. God is outside of time. He created time. He's beyond our full comprehension. People are saying how it's all too much for us to grasp. Well there it is. God is too much for us too grasp. But at the same time in his wisdom and his all mighty power he gave us a comprehension of God.


Even if it didn't though, you could just use that same argument to say that the matter which separated after the big bang just always was.

no. because ultimately the cause of the big bang would have a previous cause and it would in the end have to have an original cause. That's just the natural laws that exist. If we had no understanding of natural laws then that might be a consideration. But according to all of the scientific evidence ever recorded, every cause has an effect.

And I would really like someone to answer the quote about the universe not being a banana. Particularly this statement:

This universe canâ??t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldnâ??t have any properties until it actually came into existence."

Think of the order in the universe. All the natural laws that hold things together and keep everything from being absolutel chaos. I think we take that for granted. If there is no God keeping order in the heavens and the universe just happened, then there is no reason to believe that the coming to be of the universe is any more to be expected than the big bang producing a gallon of ice cream.


vej33 said:

God was really bad at physics...


if he really did mean to create us all in his image, and make sure that His word was spread far and beyond, why would he create a place where only 1 planet out of an infinite number could sustain the life that would spread "the gospel"?

Because he only wanted the gospel spread upon that one planet!

All those aliens you see in star wars can't be made in God's image. Only we are made in God's image. There's no reason to spread us all over the universe. God put us here, and it started with two people in the middle of the universe. that sounds right to me.

Billionfold said:


Does the bible say anything about the sun engulfing us in the distant future?

No. And even if that were really to happen, it wouldn't be for another 5 billion years if I remember correctly.

sombrero said:


And of course time is something without substance, so doesn't really exist.


I'll ignore the other things you said, but I will mention that time is in fact finite, and I suggest you study up on some physics.

snowblind said:


there are two major theories, that firstly the universe will expand indefinately, this is somewhat beyond the human's minds conception but it is probable.

the other maybe more believable is that the universe will expand till it reaches a criticle mass, then it will implode back upon itself.

I don't know about the first one, but I know as far as the second, this is not possible. Take a look at the page I liked to earlier which points our that there is too little mass for gravity to stop expansion.

[make it legal]

"Because he only wanted the gospel spread upon that one planet!"

I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me. Why would he do that? What about allllllll the other planets he created? He doesn't care about them or the life they may support? Why go through the trouble of creating EVERYTHING if he's not going to use it?

Do you really take everything in the Bible literally? What about the things that have been proven without doubt to be wrong, for example; earth being the center of the universe.

I suggest you read a book called "The Last Templar." It's a very
good book and I would recommend it to anyone. Anyway, I don't mean to be an asshole or anything about your religion, but I just can't help being skeptical, no, more like have 99% doubt about everything I hear about the religion.

Religions are like living species. They probably start small, then get bigger and bigger, but eventually, most species of animals will go extinct and die out. The same happens with religion.

Personally, I think religion in general causes waaaaaay too many problems. Far more than they solve. They cause war, discrimination, and much more.

One last food for thought: There are soooo many religions in the world, most of them conflicting each other. Everybody believes theirs to be right. Everybody's can't be right though, obviously, so what makes you so sure yours and the right one?

[snowblind]

the thing about life and specifically life on the earth is that it is dependent on 3 things, carbon, oxygen and light from the sun. all our energies when traced back to its roots are derived from the sun, with the possible exception of nuclear power, yet with complex physics it is possible to relate the two. these are the things we and all life forms on earth need and needed to create and sustain life.
its is arguble that electricity, initially from lightening then from sustained bio creation is required but this is not an exclusivity of life, more perhaps its defining characeristic.
we where created on this earth due to circumstances adn chance, out planet being the rght distance, water, food, primordial soup, lightening. this created living cells, evolution, big macs yadda yadda yadda.
but this is not to say that the life we know as being life is the only only life form in the universe. so to think that we are alone or that god created us is wrong.
yet the idea of god is one that i personally think has been miscontrued through all the religons and all the 'holy people'
i think god or the nature of god is life, but is energy in essence, not nessecerially a being or a concious but unexplainable vibrating of particles, atoms, quarks, that sustain us.
all religon takes of the good and the bad the light and dark and i think they are there on the cusp of it, but it has been flawed and manipulated by human control.
llight really is the essence of the human world and probably but not ultimately other life forms.

in response to the person asking about mutual exclusivity of religon and science. they are not mutually exclusive at all and infact often youse each other to explain their own downfalls.

i would argue more that science is the dominet with religon filling in the blanks, but it is important to treat things with spiritualatiy otherwise we become nothing more than bio chemical reactions.

science has always been condemed by religon thanks to small minded religous zealots, who seek power, control and wealth through the masses.

religon for all the good it does in this world and it does do alot, is the cause of so much pain and suffering. due to the small mindedness of those that loose the inherent meaning of each religon so easily when it is attacked. love, peace and respect.

this truely is the gateway to a higher existence and to a rested soul. and no god could deny a person on the grounds of following the wron sect, because they are all just sects of the same thing, if they adhere to those simple principles.

this is why i love weed

i love physics

and i love debating the universe

it always reminds me of the stars, i love to look at them because they never seem to change, yet the world does so fast and in 100 years they will be the only things that know who i am.

peace and progress

snowblind

[make it legal]

People also think that life may not be native to earth, but that it may have come from somewhere else. They think it may have come on a comet or something like that that hit the earth.

It is possible for live to live on a comet. These thing are called extremeophiles, and they can handle very intense conditions.

[LuckyG]

Why hasn't this thread devolved into silly pictures of lolcats yet?

[PaRaNoIa]

I dunno if anyone posted this already, but I read somewhere, that the universe keeps expanding, until it's stretched so much, that it colapses onto itself, aka. another big bang.. This will happen forever and ever and ever and ever..


The article I read was alot more complex, but that should give you the basics..:)

[MadSativa]

People also think that life may not be native to earth, but that it may have come from somewhere else. They think it may have come on a comet or something like that that hit the earth.

It is possible for live to live on a comet. These thing are called extremeophiles, and they can handle very intense conditions.

I totaly get this theroy too like some one said somewhere on the second page they are finding bones where they are not soposed to be. This proves we did not come from apes, if they have found human bones not neanderthal or yeti but human in the time where their should have been no humans, this proves we did not come from apes, the best Idea I have heard to support the theroy of evolution was. "Those Monkeys were stupid they didnt follows us and look at them now" and life is all over our univers just not walking around and tryin to conntact us.....as far as we know oh and M Theroy look it up

[snowblind]

druing the age where neanderthals where around, there was another evolutionary type of humans, who acoriding to all artifacts and bones where intelectually superior to us, in that they had a larger brain with a massive frontal lobe, much like the statues on easter island. it is thought that during one of the ice ages where both species roamed, that us homo erectus managed to domesticate dogs to such a standard that we used them to hunt. apparently this was our winning edge over the impending snow and ability to find food.

the evolutionary chain is not really a chain,it is more a web based on trial and error. therefore it is likely that there were many alpha and beta types of every animal and being on this planet that never made the cut. darwinism and all.

it is evolutionary possible to trace humans back all the way to well if you wanted to amobe in the primordial soup.

natureisawesome. THERE IS NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM WHAT SO EVER !!??!!

what is your proof ?

[HighTillIDie]

lol it is funny too because of how much the universe is expanding, and how long it take light to get to us, what we see in space, is mostly billions of years ago

[natureisawesome]

No evidence for creation whatsoever???

Why don't you go look in the mirror.

Do you just want me to start listing all the evidence, because that might take me the rest of my life.

We both have the same evidence, but we have different interpretations of that evidence because of two different worldviews. The Bible says that faith in God is foolishness to man. It says the faith of the gospel is foolishness to the gentiles. Man will believe in what his own crooked mind has devised, but he will hardly consider believing in God. Which is hypocricy, because even evolution requires belief! So as I've pointed out before, If you say I don't have any evidence because it's not all conclusive, well then right back at you! But the evidence we do have fits with creation, and just about everything your teachers taught you about evolution in high school was rejected by leading evolutionists themselves years and years and years ago. But they keep teaching it to your children (just like in communist countries, isn't that interesting), because they don't have anything else to stand on! That's why many leading evolutionists have rejected long periods for evolution and now are devising crackpot theories of spontaneous evolution. It couldn't have taken millions of years, because the evidence doesn't show that, so It must have happened real quick. And all this was way back in the eighties, and if you don't know about this, then go do some studying before anyone call me ignorant.

Here is a short thing to say, but in real application it is HUGE. All dna in living species is absolute evidence creation of God, because the laws of the universe, specifically the laws of thermodynamics, would not and do not allow organisms to form from basic elements. There are several other laws that would help to keep this from happening, and even though it's already been shown to be absolutely totally statistically impossible over 20 years ago, teachers and professors still preach that garbage like it's a fact over and over, because if people really started having some skepticism, then evolution would be exposed as the simple minded corrupt fantasy it really is. Not only would the laws of nature not allow evolution to happen, but according to evolution, changes that happen to dna are random, and therefore cannot create the order neccessary to survive and develop into intracate organisms and creatures fit to survive and flourish. And in reality there is no mechanism in nature that causes an organism to "adapt" to stimuli in nature. There just isn't, and even darwin himself criticized this preposterous idea. If most people knew what darwin hypothesised to cause macroevolution he would never again be seen as leading figure. He would be seen as the fool he really was.

Aside from the things I pointed out earlier as things that fit with a creationist model, there are many other evidences.

Man and woman being alive at the same time. This is probably one of, if not the biggest attacks to evolution and one of the greatest evidences of God. To say man evolved is one thing, but then woman evolved too, in the same time period with the capability to magically fit mans ingredibly complex sex organs and reproduce? And all this had to happen in short enough time before they died. Man and woman fit well together, remarkably I might add, and evolutionists are dead silent on this issue. You can say man took millions of years to evolve, but all along that time he had to have been able to reproduce, but this would in evolutionary theory, take millions and millions of years. But it's all silly, and even man evolving alone is almost as silly. Perhaps someone might say that they developed sex organs earlier on hen they were simpler organisms. Oh really?? Well, beside the fact that that still totally couldn't have happened because even simple organisms reproduction systems are incredibly complex, it only poses a slightly smaller challange than before, and even if it did happen, when the creatures evolved into higher species, both sexes would have had to evolve higher in conjunction in every generation.

I'm going to stop right there because I want to point out something very important. There is a lot of material evidence that fits with creation. But something I believe just as or more important is another kind of evidence. This is evidence that's not just numbers or rocks or bones. The bible says that:

" the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse "

What does this mean in practical application? It means that God created everything through his divine inspiration, that through his creation he's revealed his nature. But these things simply cannot be anylized in test tubes or carbon dated because these things are ETERNAL. The order that he's created and his creation show his love. And you can see it everywhere from the relationship a man has to a wife, father to son, mother to daughter. Think of the natural balance in the relationship between woman and man. Think of the conscience we have within ourselves, which show a reflection of God's nature, and reveal our need for a relationship with him. And I could go on. Honestly though, it's so hard to talk about those things, because it's so mysterious. But If you look at the order of the heavens and earth, how the grass grows for us to walk on, and the trees give food for us to eat, and in the sky the clouds float above us, and beyond the stars fill the universe. When I consider the order and beauty, and it all just fits so well, and I recognise God's workmanship, albeit sealed up in a mystery.

I suggest you go check out some articles on this website:

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics (http://www.answersingenesis.org)

[natureisawesome]

make it legal said:

QUOTE]I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me. Why would he do that? What about allllllll the other planets he created? He doesn't care about them or the life they may support? Why go through the trouble of creating EVERYTHING if he's not going to use it?[/QUOTE]


I think he is using it. To impress us mostly, and show us how powerful and awesome he is. Have you ever camped out under the stars on a really clear night, and it ll just feels so huge, and you sit back and think about how your staring into the universe on a giant rock floating and spinning through space at thousands of miles an hour. Pretty powerful.

Also the angels have a lot better view than we do, and they worship him too.

And not to mention that God is a master artist.


Do you really take everything in the Bible literally?


Not everything is meant to be taken literally. But generally, if it says plainly "such and such happened" yes I believe it. Prophecy though, for example, has much symbolism.


What about the things that have been proven without doubt to be wrong, for example; earth being the center of the universe.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in God's word that has been proven wrong. I've read through the Word and I can't remember it ever saying the earth is the center of the universe, or that the earth is flat. Those errors were made by men, not God's word.

But it turns out we are actually pretty close to the center of the universe as I pointed out before.


I suggest you read a book called "The Last Templar.

Eh, I don't think so. Anything with the words "templar" tends to make me wary. Maybe I'll check out the description.


One last food for thought: There are soooo many religions in the world, most of them conflicting each other. Everybody believes theirs to be right. Everybody's can't be right though, obviously, so what makes you so sure yours and the right one?

To put it bluntly, because everything fits, and I will not deny the Truth.

Here's one last food of thought for you. I hear the same objection to Christianity and religion over and over. Among these are " religion is just a form of mind/people control" and "religion hurts more people than it helps" and "religions causes so many wars".

How is it that so many people are so quick to judge the religion by the actions of wicked people? Yes, I believe Christianity has been used a form of mind/people control, and I believe that evil people in high places in religion have used it for selfish and evil purposes. I believe that many (almost all actually) practicing Christians and many many other followers of other religions have done very much harm and gotten into lots of wars.

BUt how does this compare with what Jesus and the bible teach?

Didn't Jesus say that most people were going to hell and would act wickedly? yes he did.
Didn't he say that there would be many would call them selves Christian but they really weren't? Yes he did.
And do the actions of almost all Christians fit with the rightousness taught in scripture? No way, they're corrupt, lost in darkness.

But the truth is that so many people refuse to recognise this because to do that would be to recognise God's righteousness, and people don't want to see that. My main point is, don't blame Christianty for what a lot of evil so called Christians did.

I think you also mentioned something about meteors bringing life from outer space.

For rocks to travel from another planet to earth carrying life, or vice versa, the rocks would have to be ejected with the force of a meteor impact, travel for extended periods of time, and be subjected to cosmic radiation. These factors make it highly unlikely that a life form could make the trip. It is remotely possible that there may be life present on nearby planets if the life was â??seededâ?� from earth. The SETI project, which listens for intelligent signals from outer space, and the recent Mars missions have failed to introduce any evidence. Astrobiology remains a science with no data to support it.

In any case, even if this proved to be remotely possible, think about something else. Even if life came from a meteor, it would have had to evolve on another planet first. So you're really right back at the drawing board.

What are lolcats?

[vej33]

Ok, so what about before man, when alllll those other creatures had that complicated genetalia that allowed the male and female to fit...

what about male and female PLANTS that have parts that FIT

everything FITS in nature, there's a beautiful balance and symetry that was probably born of the big bang... to a ying, there's a yang. To men, there's a woman. To a dick, there's a vagina, and to a Creationist, there is an Evolutionist.

[LuckyG]

:dance:

[cannabisis4for20]

cannabis4for20 said:



It does indeed answer with facts. The question you asked was about who created God or where did God comes from. The article directly answers that from a biblical perspective. If God exists, how would you expect someone to show you eternity??? Should I just send it to you in a box or something?

The article pointed out that everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning and therefore must have had a first cause. God does not need a cause because he never had a beginning. He's been forever and ever.

The article also uses other scientific facts to show that the universe cannot expand forever, that according to the laws of thermodynamics the universe cannot continue forever it will slow down to a dead stop, even in an oscillating universe "Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past."

It points out that "there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place" and that "the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction"


Also, very importantly it points out "that Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical â??big crunchâ??.7 As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, â??There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.â?? Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and thatâ??s the end.8"


It points out several other things as well. I guess it's easy for you to blow off the evidence I've provided when the material is off site.

Listen, according to the laws of the universe, according to every scientific experiment ever conducted by a human being, every effect has a cause. But that only applies in the physical universe. God is outside of time. He created time. He's beyond our full comprehension. People are saying how it's all too much for us to grasp. Well there it is. God is too much for us too grasp. But at the same time in his wisdom and his all mighty power he gave us a comprehension of God.



no. because ultimately the cause of the big bang would have a previous cause and it would in the end have to have an original cause. That's just the natural laws that exist. If we had no understanding of natural laws then that might be a consideration. But according to all of the scientific evidence ever recorded, every cause has an effect.

And I would really like someone to answer the quote about the universe not being a banana. Particularly this statement:

This universe canâ??t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldnâ??t have any properties until it actually came into existence."

Think of the order in the universe. All the natural laws that hold things together and keep everything from being absolutel chaos. I think we take that for granted. If there is no God keeping order in the heavens and the universe just happened, then there is no reason to believe that the coming to be of the universe is any more to be expected than the big bang producing a gallon of ice cream.


Right there!!! I understand what the bible says, but all the bible says is that god always was, and he magically doesn't apply to every other thing in existence. So what evidence is there to make me believe that God always was and created this universe as opposed to matter always being here, we just might only know the big bang as the beginning and before that everything in the universe was just sitting in space and then after the big bang life just came to be, because there just always was a potential for life to come into existence, but it didn't because it had nowhere to go. Of course that's illogical, but that same argument can be applied to god just always existing.

[make it legal]

make it legal said:

QUOTE]I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me. Why would he do that? What about allllllll the other planets he created? He doesn't care about them or the life they may support? Why go through the trouble of creating EVERYTHING if he's not going to use it?


I think he is using it. To impress us mostly, and show us how powerful and awesome he is. Have you ever camped out under the stars on a really clear night, and it ll just feels so huge, and you sit back and think about how your staring into the universe on a giant rock floating and spinning through space at thousands of miles an hour. Pretty powerful.

Also the angels have a lot better view than we do, and they worship him too.

And not to mention that God is a master artist.




Not everything is meant to be taken literally. But generally, if it says plainly "such and such happened" yes I believe it. Prophecy though, for example, has much symbolism.



There is nothing, absolutely nothing in God's word that has been proven wrong. I've read through the Word and I can't remember it ever saying the earth is the center of the universe, or that the earth is flat. Those errors were made by men, not God's word.

But it turns out we are actually pretty close to the center of the universe as I pointed out before.



Eh, I don't think so. Anything with the words "templar" tends to make me wary. Maybe I'll check out the description.



To put it bluntly, because everything fits, and I will not deny the Truth.

Here's one last food of thought for you. I hear the same objection to Christianity and religion over and over. Among these are " religion is just a form of mind/people control" and "religion hurts more people than it helps" and "religions causes so many wars".

How is it that so many people are so quick to judge the religion by the actions of wicked people? Yes, I believe Christianity has been used a form of mind/people control, and I believe that evil people in high places in religion have used it for selfish and evil purposes. I believe that many (almost all actually) practicing Christians and many many other followers of other religions have done very much harm and gotten into lots of wars.

BUt how does this compare with what Jesus and the bible teach?

Didn't Jesus say that most people were going to hell and would act wickedly? yes he did.
Didn't he say that there would be many would call them selves Christian but they really weren't? Yes he did.
And do the actions of almost all Christians fit with the rightousness taught in scripture? No way, they're corrupt, lost in darkness.

But the truth is that so many people refuse to recognise this because to do that would be to recognise God's righteousness, and people don't want to see that. My main point is, don't blame Christianty for what a lot of evil so called Christians did.

I think you also mentioned something about meteors bringing life from outer space.

For rocks to travel from another planet to earth carrying life, or vice versa, the rocks would have to be ejected with the force of a meteor impact, travel for extended periods of time, and be subjected to cosmic radiation. These factors make it highly unlikely that a life form could make the trip. It is remotely possible that there may be life present on nearby planets if the life was â??seededâ?� from earth. The SETI project, which listens for intelligent signals from outer space, and the recent Mars missions have failed to introduce any evidence. Astrobiology remains a science with no data to support it.

In any case, even if this proved to be remotely possible, think about something else. Even if life came from a meteor, it would have had to evolve on another planet first. So you're really right back at the drawing board.

What are lolcats?[/QUOTE]

Well, the whole idea of the life coming to earth is based of the fact that there are some forms of bacteria and things like that which can survive very extreme conditions.

If God is such a powerful and incredible being, why would he need to create people just to be impressed be him? Is God really that insecure?

If he created everything, then why would there be so much scientific proof of things the contradict the bible. We know that the universe is older than the Bible says. (I'm not sure how old it says it is but from the little big of genesis that I read it sounds like a lot less than 13 billion years old). If I am correct, it sounds like in the Bible that the first two people were around pretty quickly after the universe was created. We know that there was a very long time that there were no people on earth. In fact, if the timespan of the earth were reduced to one minute, then humans would have only been around for 1/10 of a second.

About the earth being close to the center of the universe, that can't be, seeing as there is no center.

I would say personally, that if I did believe in God, I would be more of a dieist (the idea that God is a sort of "clock maker"). I think that if God really loved everybody and controlled everything, he wouldn't make such horrible things happen. It makes more sense that he could have just triggered the Big Bang and let the Universe run itself out.

[snowblind]

No evidence for creation whatsoever???

Why don't you go look in the mirror.

Do you just want me to start listing all the evidence, because that might take me the rest of my life.

We both have the same evidence, but we have different interpretations of that evidence because of two different worldviews. The Bible says that faith in God is foolishness to man. It says the faith of the gospel is foolishness to the gentiles. Man will believe in what his own crooked mind has devised, but he will hardly consider believing in God. Which is hypocricy, because even evolution requires belief! So as I've pointed out before, If you say I don't have any evidence because it's not all conclusive, well then right back at you! But the evidence we do have fits with creation, and just about everything your teachers taught you about evolution in high school was rejected by leading evolutionists themselves years and years and years ago. But they keep teaching it to your children (just like in communist countries, isn't that interesting), because they don't have anything else to stand on! That's why many leading evolutionists have rejected long periods for evolution and now are devising crackpot theories of spontaneous evolution. It couldn't have taken millions of years, because the evidence doesn't show that, so It must have happened real quick. And all this was way back in the eighties, and if you don't know about this, then go do some studying before anyone call me ignorant.

Here is a short thing to say, but in real application it is HUGE. All dna in living species is absolute evidence creation of God, because the laws of the universe, specifically the laws of thermodynamics, would not and do not allow organisms to form from basic elements. There are several other laws that would help to keep this from happening, and even though it's already been shown to be absolutely totally statistically impossible over 20 years ago, teachers and professors still preach that garbage like it's a fact over and over, because if people really started having some skepticism, then evolution would be exposed as the simple minded corrupt fantasy it really is. Not only would the laws of nature not allow evolution to happen, but according to evolution, changes that happen to dna are random, and therefore cannot create the order neccessary to survive and develop into intracate organisms and creatures fit to survive and flourish. And in reality there is no mechanism in nature that causes an organism to "adapt" to stimuli in nature. There just isn't, and even darwin himself criticized this preposterous idea. If most people knew what darwin hypothesised to cause macroevolution he would never again be seen as leading figure. He would be seen as the fool he really was.

Aside from the things I pointed out earlier as things that fit with a creationist model, there are many other evidences.

Man and woman being alive at the same time. This is probably one of, if not the biggest attacks to evolution and one of the greatest evidences of God. To say man evolved is one thing, but then woman evolved too, in the same time period with the capability to magically fit mans ingredibly complex sex organs and reproduce? And all this had to happen in short enough time before they died. Man and woman fit well together, remarkably I might add, and evolutionists are dead silent on this issue. You can say man took millions of years to evolve, but all along that time he had to have been able to reproduce, but this would in evolutionary theory, take millions and millions of years. But it's all silly, and even man evolving alone is almost as silly. Perhaps someone might say that they developed sex organs earlier on hen they were simpler organisms. Oh really?? Well, beside the fact that that still totally couldn't have happened because even simple organisms reproduction systems are incredibly complex, it only poses a slightly smaller challange than before, and even if it did happen, when the creatures evolved into higher species, both sexes would have had to evolve higher in conjunction in every generation.

I'm going to stop right there because I want to point out something very important. There is a lot of material evidence that fits with creation. But something I believe just as or more important is another kind of evidence. This is evidence that's not just numbers or rocks or bones. The bible says that:

" the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse "

What does this mean in practical application? It means that God created everything through his divine inspiration, that through his creation he's revealed his nature. But these things simply cannot be anylized in test tubes or carbon dated because these things are ETERNAL. The order that he's created and his creation show his love. And you can see it everywhere from the relationship a man has to a wife, father to son, mother to daughter. Think of the natural balance in the relationship between woman and man. Think of the conscience we have within ourselves, which show a reflection of God's nature, and reveal our need for a relationship with him. And I could go on. Honestly though, it's so hard to talk about those things, because it's so mysterious. But If you look at the order of the heavens and earth, how the grass grows for us to walk on, and the trees give food for us to eat, and in the sky the clouds float above us, and beyond the stars fill the universe. When I consider the order and beauty, and it all just fits so well, and I recognise God's workmanship, albeit sealed up in a mystery.

I suggest you go check out some articles on this website:

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics (http://www.answersingenesis.org)


your argument for all my arguments being able to prove creationism, through the belief of evolution is a fickle argument in that it works both ways.

you use the idea of consciousness and of the love between a man and a women as proof of gods creation. yet you apply 'modern day thinking' to the entire course of the human species. we haven't always been consious beings, in that ultimately it is likely that our brains evolved to the idea we posses as consousness after our bodies became the tools they are.

it is widely believed that the use of cooked meat help us to advance in this feild and it is proved the cooking of meat provides vital nutrients to feed the brain and its development.

you say there is no proof of evolutionary adaptation to its surroundings, but this is illogical. take for example the bear. polar and grizley. both genetically almost identical yet evolutionary different to suit their natural surroundings. the same with artic cats and jungle cats of the same classification yet both adapted. even more prevelant are the insects which live in caves deep within the earth. there is a whole evolutionary chain of insects and invertibrates that have learnt to live without sunlight and are adapted too. there is diversity within all the animal species for their habitat. dawrin wasn't a sceptic of his own research at all. it is likely that the source you read and took this from was part of the properganda surrounding his work due to people like yourself.

it has already been proven that the enviroment was right to create the nessecary acids and required chemicals and subsequent reactions to create life. it is proven.

spontaneous evolution is not as far fetched as it seems, but it is important to keep it in perspective. in that our dna and rna mutates all the time and for 1000 mutant offspring that may be spawned and die before a month, there are those that are benefited by their mutations and survive to go and repopulate.

you say that man and women being alive together at the same time is one of the biggest proofs of creationism, yet in reality it is the biggest argument for evolution. if man where asexual it would have died soon. men and women exist so that dna is shared and evolution can take place. in that each offspring is the sum of two halves. therefore with only the fittest from each sex surviving the offspring is stronger. much in the same way we have breed cattle for centuries, to make them bigger beeifer and inherently inbread and stupid.

if you think about the penis and the vagina they are replicated through out the hole of nature. from plants to cattle. it is a successgul delivery method of mixing the sperm and egg. and it is the most effective in mamals, ultimately why we evolved to our status above the food chain. animals with other methods, such as fish, insects, birds didnt evolve as greately as their reproduction methods are not as advanced or sucessful as ours.

and through man and woman you apply the human logic of love, yet this is an advanced status of thinking brought about by our rising above the food chain and stepping out of physical evolution. do you think early cave man fell in love or just spread his oats because he was the strongest and the desire to reproduce is somehting buried deep in our genetic code.

the trouble is the bible is at worst 2000 years old, granted the dead sea scrolls are alod older but the modern version you read from are around that age. but wait, i just want to be clear, get your copy, is it the king james version ?? so thats the one revised in 1611. which is my point. the bible and the logic you work from is as all religons are wrote from man, so unherenantly biased.

they negate the spiritual side of the human species, because and this may shock you i do believe in a god. just i don't believe in the bullshit around it. the bible is a collection of stories, born of a time to comfort, compell and help the masses understand the world. but what is missed is the point. love peace and respect. that is the true nature of god.

the idea god created is flawed. creationism is unlikely. we didnt just appear. we just didnt. i would rather believe aliens tampered with our frontal lobe than we just apperaed, becuase if we are created through gods divine inspiration and we are all made in the image of god, then he made us fundementally flawed. he is a rapist, a murdered, a biggot, he is gay, he is bisexual, he is a pedophile, he is lost, he hurts, he doesnt believe in himself, he doesnt offer eternal forgivness and he creates wars.

because if he created us, if he did, why did he make the flaw in us to be evil, why even give us that choice. if he is all knowing, if he is all seeing then he knew exactly what would happen, he knew it would take us milenia to understand him, he knew we would kill the non believers and he knew that his word would be split and manipulated into many different sects, who preach and wage wars in his name.

becuase if we are god, then god works on human logic and therefore is flawed by all the above points.

its not right, god is energy, god is light, god is the life we have for a short time. nothing before nothing after.

but god is such a human projection, this is the way of the universe, this is the universe.

it is not wrong to have faith and aploud you for it, we live in times of confusion, anger, division and apathy. this is dangerous, but more dangerous that all that is blind faith.

my best wishes to you

s s s s s snowblind

[Stealth331]

This is one of the best threads I've ever read!

Also is the reason I joined. I look forward to discussing various topics with fellow members.

Looks as if we have some educated people amongst us!

I haven't read enough to post my opinion on this topic but there is no way we are alone in the universe. As to what happened before the big bang??? No idea yet. Give me a few days....I'll figure it out and get back to you:D

All the best and peace..

[vej33]

it's so hard to picture nothing... because before the big bang, it's very possible that there WAS nothing....

what if there wasn't a universe until something came along that required a habitat... perhaps it never was, until it was needed. AH!

can you picture nothing?

[HighTillIDie]

can you picture nothing?

....


:wtf:

[vej33]

ps, excellent writing Snowblind. I couldn't agree more.

[snowblind]

wikdi does this mean that i win, that some kind of 48 hrs knock out

schweet

all hail me

i am your new god

snowblind

[king of the world]

there had to have been something before the big bang because if there was nothing before the big bang then the big bang would not have happened.

you know what im sayin' ??

[horror business]

I'm a human, and I prefer to think of myself as an evolved human. We as humans should have evolved throughout time. We used to not believe in God until the Romans invented it (Christianity) as a tool to oppress people and kill the ones who didn't agree. I don't believe anything from the Bible as to me it's fiction. I believe in evolution, and I also believe there are things that can not be explained. I'm not saying there isn't some "God", I just do not believe in the personification of the Christian God. I've tried to answer these questions myself, but finally gave up and am just thankful that cannabis is here as well.

[snowblind]

horro business thats exactly how i feel. you cant use human logic to explain god our heads would just explode. and man i have tried the bible is a big story book, fully of useful ANALOGIES to live your life well. not a book of out and out rules to live

peace brother

snowblind

[420ultimatesmokage]

i'm not trying to be rude but most of you seem to know very little about the big bang and should at least read up on it a little before you comment. i couldn't make it through this whole thread but i'll comment on some of the misconceptions i read.

1. from our current understanding and evidence, the universe is not going to collapse in on itself. space contains dark energy (we do not know what it is but we can measure it) which has a repulsive force. as the space between galaxies become larger so will the dark energy repulsive force, causing the galaxies to accelerate at an increasing rate.

2. we only know what happened at 10^-43 second onwards. our theories don't make any sense when we put in t=0. the main reason for this is because we have two conflicting theories, general relativity and quantum mechanics. general relativity is good and describing things that are large and heavy while quantum mechanics is good and describing things that are very small and light. the problem is when something is extremely heavy and also extremely small such as black holes and the big bang. to come up with a theory that marries these tow is the holy grail of science and has been called the theory of everything (or the unified field theory to be technical). we've made some progress on this such as string theory, unfortunately there is not a test that can falsify it so we still have a ways to go.

3. there is a lot of evidence for the big bang. the first was discovered by Edwin Hubble who saw that all galaxies are red shifted meaning they are all moving away from us suggesting that if you turned back the clock all galaxies would come from a single place. the second big discovery and the best evidence for the big bang was made by bell labs (this won the discovers the Nobel prize). they built a radiometer for astronomy and satellite communications but they notice something strange, everywhere they pointed it there seemed to be a constant uniform source of microwave radiation. at first they thought it was faulty equipment, then thought it might be the birds in the radiometer after discounting all of the possible problems with their set up, they realized there seemed to be microwave radiation coming from every direction of space at the same temperature.

to understand why there is a uniform radiation permeating space (called cmb or cosmic microwave background radiation) one must understand what happened a trillionth of a trillionth of a second or something like that after the big bang. the following is our best understanding of what happened.

the universe started out as a minuscule point smaller than an atom. it contained some twenty pounds of matter, the rest was energy. this point was trillions upon trillions of degrees hot and for some unknown reason it exploded for lack of a better term. this energy spontaneously turned to matter as according to e=mc^2 (energy=mass*speed of light squared).this energy turned into matter and anti matter. for those who don't know what happens when matter and anti matter get together, they annihilate each other releasing a very large amount energy in the form of light (to give you an idea of how much energy is released from matter/anitmatter reaction, only a few grams of antimatter would be needed to send the space shuttle into orbit).

so a split second after the big bang there was a tremendous explosion from the matter and anti matter annihilating each other. luckily for us there was more matter than anti matter or we wouldn't be here today (that is also a great mystery why there was more matter than anti matter). all this energy created from this explosion continued to expand with the universe. due to ever increasing space this light was stretched becoming a lower and lower wavelength until we reach today some 13.7 billion years where it now peeks in the microwave range. i find it incredibly amazing that this explosions was so huge that we still see the remnants 13 billion years later.

this was an extremely simplified version of events but i hope it shed some light on what happened.

[420ultimatesmokage]

of topic reply to natureisawsome, have you ever taken a biology class jesus i've never seen such ignorance in one post. you site the laws of thermodynamics but what you seem to not know is that this applies to a closed systems, earth is not a closed system. evolution is one of the most well documented scientific theories we have. the evidence is endless; Neanderthal, Australopithecus, homo erectus, cro magnon man, endosymbiosis, drug resistant microbes, fossil records, dna evidence, living fossils, vestigal structures, carbon dating, radiometric dating, the list goes on and fucking on. even the god damn pope accepts evolution happened. have you ever looked at the evidence at any other websites besides imanidoitwhobelievesincreation.com and evolutionisthedevil.com?

don't bother replying, you're blocked. if it's one thing i've learned is not to argue with a creationist, they site faulty claims and ignore any evidence you put forward.

[snowblind]

hey dude do you know the name of the species that was around before homo erectus that had a larger frontal lobe than us and was significantly physically stronger.

i remeber reading a chapter about them in a text book basically stating that man and this species where together and man managed to train canines to an extent that they hunted for food and drove them out of extinction.

i know im not making itup, but i cant find alot on it

cheers ali

[snowblind]

ps lol, i love the bell labs story. that they teted the hole thing for a year. cleaning it and killing pidgeons all around so that there was no interference

[420ultimatesmokage]

maybe your thinking of neanderthals which were around at the same time as modern humans and is thought that we may have drove them to extinction. but this is all after homo erectus went extinct. they were stockier and had more ape like features like a large brow ridge.
Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthals)


ps lol, i love the bell labs story. that they teted the hole thing for a year. cleaning it and killing pidgeons all around so that there was no interference

yes that was a great story. they cleaned out all the bird shit and everything lol

[420ultimatesmokage]

to think of it you are probably talking about cro-magnon man. i found this wiki, check out the forehead. according to this wiki, cro magnon man might have been the cause of the neanderthal extinction.

Cro-Magnon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon)

[stinkyattic]

Before homo erectus was homo habilis

[420ultimatesmokage]

don't forget homo ergaster :)

[MadSativa]

all those homos (befor human) were just yetis (sasquatch) they werent my grandparents

[MadSativa]

[quote=snowblind]

it is evolutionary possible to trace humans back all the way to well if you wanted to amobe in the primordial soup.

QUOTE]

no its not; it is not possible in order to have this possible we would have to prove a positve human genetic mutation which in our history of man and science the only mutation that was ever positive (according to a few) was sickel cell enemia. This is not a positive mutation at all It saved many from a malaria infested land but at a great price. in order for all of eveolution to be tru our genetic material would have had to mutate we have never seen a natual mutation which came out positive. We see it with germs and viruses but not in complex life. The fact that they took those bones and hidd them so no scientist could study and test them makes me think there is validity and great concern of why are they hiding them from us. We already see flaws in the little monkey girl that is soposed to be our missing link.

[420ultimatesmokage]

all those homos (befor human) were just yetis (sasquatch) they werent my grandparents

and you know this how?

[MadSativa]

I know this cause yetis are sitll around and monkeys are still around and humans arnt changing or showin signs of changing, we change color and grow more hair but were still human besides my grand parents were around till about 2000 they were spanish not monkeys

[420ultimatesmokage]

for god sakes if you guys want a debate about evolution make an evolution thread. the big bang and evolution are completely separate theories. im making one right now.

[MadSativa]

haha k but all signs and point to their was a big bang I respect everyons veiw on religon but even the pope has accepted that their was more than likely a big bang.

[420ultimatesmokage]

this is the last thing I'm saying about evolution in this thread. your argument is false, of course there are still going to be monkeys around. evolution is random mutations selected by non random processes. things adapt to their environment, not all results are going to be the same. evolution has no goal, just to better survival. all the monkeys and apes aren't going to turn into humans no more than horses turning into zebras. and of course we haven't seen any changes in humans, this takes hundreds of thousands of years.

[MadSativa]

we have been around for hundreds of thousands of years and if those bones would be released we could possibly prove it but untill then?????????I thought you were gonna start the evolution thread??

[420ultimatesmokage]

are you blind or something, its right below this one.

[MadSativa]

oh shit ill look I wasnt looking but well move to the next thread

[natureisawesome]

Hey,

Just got back from a week of hiking up in the olympic national
mountains.

Guess I have to get started in my responses. This is frustrating, the
thread got moved (sort of).

I think I'll just respond to stuff here in this thread and move on to
the next one. Alright.

cannabis4for20 said:


Right there!!! I understand what the bible says, but all the
bible says is that god always was, and he magically doesn't apply to
every other thing in existence.


Actually it's not magic at all, but if it was so what. You're really not
explaining your argument very well and I wish you would make sense.


So what evidence is there to make me believe that God always was
and created this universe as opposed to matter always being here, we
just might only know the big bang as the beginning and before that
everything in the universe was just sitting in space and then after the
big bang life just came to be, because there just always was a potential
for life to come into existence, but it didn't because it had nowhere to
go. Of course that's illogical, but that same argument can be applied to
god just always existing.


No it can't be applied to God also. Did you even pay attention to my
explanation? Not only is God being outside of time a logical
explanation, there really can be no other explanation because the
natural laws that exist rule that every cause must have an effect, but
outside of time and this universe that wouldn't hold true. Did you know
that the universe will slow down to a stop someday if things continue on
as they are? Did you even read the whole article I linked. This is not
that hard to understand.

makeitlegal said


Well, the whole idea of the life coming to earth is based of the
fact that there are some forms of bacteria and things like that which
can survive very extreme conditions.

You do realize that space is a vaccum right? There's no oxygen out
there. No water. That makes it a lot more difficult. You could argue
there was oxygen and water on the comet but that is just really getting
into fantasy land.



If he created everything, then why would there be so much
scientific proof of things the contradict the bible. We know that the
universe is older than the Bible says. (I'm not sure how old it says it
is but from the little big of genesis that I read it sounds like a lot
less than 13 billion years old). If I am correct, it sounds like in the
Bible that the first two people were around pretty quickly after the
universe was created. We know that there was a very long time that there
were no people on earth. In fact, if the timespan of the earth were
reduced to one minute, then humans would have only been around for 1/10
of a second.


No, we don't know that the earth is billions of years old. Radiometric
and carbon dating methods are both erroneous very very often. It often
takes more than several tries just to get anywhere near what the
scientists are looking for, in fact they often have to "play" with the
data just to get it right. The evidence we dig up from past
civilizations and the written history both show that civilization
originated right around the area where the israelites once lived and
around Egypt and Babylon. These civilations sprang up seemingly out of
nowhere, with no archeological evidence of long stanges of growth in
culture or knoledge. Some of the evidence was very advanced such as
example of the ancient pyramids in Egypt which people today still don't
understand how they were built. This is a weell known expample and
there are many many more surely. Carbon dating method does't work on
things that weren't alive like rocks either. They can only work on
things that once were alive, and all dating methods require assumptions
of sometimes very technical data going back thousands of years.



About the earth being close to the center of the universe, that
can't be, seeing as there is no center

Um I just showed you an article where a scientist from a body of well
credited scientists showed that the leading research showed that we
really are close to the center of the universe. This information wasn't
presented as a sidline view either, but something recognised on both
sides of this debate and something generally excepted. You're not a
scientist and you gave no evidence why it's not true. You just blew it
off because it's from a creationist view.


I think that if God really loved everybody and controlled
everything, he wouldn't make such horrible things happen.

Oh what horrible things are those? Creating Food, beauty,plants,
animals, the human race, being the source of love and putting the
ability to love others in us? Giving us minds and feelings and all the
Wonderful pleasures of life? For creating herbs to ease your pain and
wanting to have a relationship with you and forgive us? No, I think if
the world is messed up it's mans fault, and if God makes things tough on
us as punishment and allows us to feel the natural consequences of our
actions, that's just and good.

snowblind said:


we haven't always been consious beings, in that ultimately it is
likely that our brains evolved to the idea we posses as consousness
after our bodies became the tools they are.

this isn't reasonable. This is fantasy land. By the way, much of our so
called evolutionary adapatations are based upon the premise that the
creature evolving had a desire to survive and experience pleasure so on
so as to motivate it to survive and evolve. You know, survival of the
fittest ( Which is true, just not as part of an evolutionary framework).
But this requires a consciousness.

How sad, to think of living creatures as merely " a collection of living
parts for survival." You're really missing out.


you say there is no proof of evolutionary adaptation to its
surroundings, but this is illogical. take for example the bear. polar
and grizley. both genetically almost identical yet evolutionary
different to suit their natural surroundings. the same with artic cats
and jungle cats of the same classification yet both adapted. even more
prevelant are the insects which live in caves deep within the earth.
there is a whole evolutionary chain of insects and invertibrates that
have learnt to live without sunlight and are adapted too. there is
diversity within all the animal species for their habitat. dawrin wasn't
a sceptic of his own research at all. it is likely that the source you
read and took this from was part of the properganda surrounding his work
due to people like yourself.

Those adaptations are no macroevolution but microevolution. That term
is deceiving. The changes you're talking about are from preexisting
genetic information. That's not evolution at all, just genetic
variability. And the bugs you're talking about losing there eyesight in
caves having evolved evolutionarily either. Those bugs actually had a
loss of information. That's not evolution at all. In fact, very often,
when animals breed and have different characteristics, they lose
genetic information as times goes on. This happens often in nature.
There has never been reported or observed credibly any increase in
genetic mutation as part of darwinian evolution.
Ever.



it has already been proven that the enviroment was right to
create the nessecary acids and required chemicals and subsequent
reactions to create life. it is proven.

Absolute nonsense. Pure fiction fed to you as fact.


spontaneous evolution is not as far fetched as it seems, but it
is important to keep it in perspective. in that our dna and rna mutates
all the time and for 1000 mutant offspring that may be spawned and die
before a month, there are those that are benefited by their mutations
and survive to go and repopulate.

You're right our dna does mutate, because we're being constantly
bombarded by harmful radiation and rays from the sun. This is damaging
our dna at an incredibly rate, and many diseases we now have are caused
by this mutation. In fact, we have so many errors in our dna it's
amazing we're still alive, but thankfully more often than not the
females and them ales dna when they repoduce work together have a sort
of safegaurd action and the erroneous dna doesn't come out in the child.
The only way the rest of the offspring that didn't die off benefit is
that they have less competition for food and other needed resources.

y
ou say that man and women being alive together at the same time
is one of the biggest proofs of creationism, yet in reality it is the
biggest argument for evolution. if man where asexual it would have died
soon. men and women exist so that dna is shared and evolution can take
place. in that each offspring is the sum of two halves. therefore with
only the fittest from each sex surviving the offspring is stronger. much
in the same way we have breed cattle for centuries, to make them bigger
beeifer and inherently inbread and stupid.


No, man and woman being alive at the smae time is a miracle, and leading
evolutionsts don't have a credible answer for this. Hardly a whisper
even. And look also at the natural beauty of a man and a woman, and how they both fit together. It's obvious they were made for each other. Consider how complicated their sex organs are, let alone thier whole bodies. A womans external sex organ for instance, has a remarkable machanism for sexual stimulation that screams for a designer.Saying that two sexes would be better for survival than being asexual is a far cry from being proof of any kind of evolution. Some claims for evolution are only less rediculous than others. By the way, asexual can be more advantageous in that sex has many disadvantages, e.g., only 50 percent of the genes are passed on to an offspring. This means that there is a 50 percent chance of losing a beneficial mutation. And in a stable population (i.e., not changing the number of individuals), there is on average one surviving offspring per parent, so asexual reproduction is twice as efficient at passing on genes to the next generation. But there are also benefits to sex, such as an optimal gene configureation being passed on etc. But in any case, advantages don't explain origin. But creationists can explain the origin of fully functioning sexual reproduction, from the start, in an optimal and genetically diverse population. Once the mechanisms are already in place, they have these advantages. But simply having advantages doesnâ??t remotely explain how they could be built from scratch. The hypothetical transitional forms would be highly disadvantageous, so natural selection would work against them. In many cases, the male and female genitalia are precisely tuned so one could fit the other, meaning that they could not have evolved independently.


if you think about the penis and the vagina they are replicated through out the hole of nature. from plants to cattle. it is a successgul delivery method of mixing the sperm and egg. and it is the most effective in mamals, ultimately why we evolved to our status above the food chain. animals with other methods, such as fish, insects, birds didnt evolve as greately as their reproduction methods are not as advanced or sucessful as ours.

There are many reproductive systems in life forms with less mental capacities that are far more successful than ours. That's nonsense.



and through man and woman you apply the human logic of love, yet this is an advanced status of thinking brought about by our rising above the food chain and stepping out of physical evolution. do you think early cave man fell in love or just spread his oats because he was the strongest and the desire to reproduce is somehting buried deep in our genetic code.

l I can say that is rubbish. In fact, aside from all the other evidence I could show you that love is not from random mutations or even ultimately dependent upon our brains , love is not good in an evolutionary world. It works against evolution and compromises survival. This is another Truth against creation. People choose love over survival every day, and pay for it. They choose love and make sacrifices, despite it being illogical in an evolutionary world with no God where love is meaningless. But people confirm the consceince God has put in them every day by this.


the trouble is the bible is at worst 2000 years old, granted the dead sea scrolls are alot older but the modern version you read from are around that age. but wait, i just want to be clear, get your copy, is it the king james version ?? so thats the one revised in 1611. which is my point. the bible and the logic you work from is as all religons are wrote from man, so unherenantly biased.


Actually I read the king James version and also the new american standard bible updated edition together and compare both and also use strongs greek and hebrew concordance with dictionaries. I suggest you download esword and try it. I'm not going to get into all that right now but the dead sea scrolls are not credible for use in producing bibles, only as a historical reference to show how old scripture is.Everyone is biased by the way including you, and the bible is not, because man didn't write it on his own. You don't believe this and so you think it's biased but you have the problem not me.



because if he created us, if he did, why did he make the flaw in us to be evil, why even give us that choice. if he is all knowing, if he is all seeing then he knew exactly what would happen, he knew it would take us milenia to understand him, he knew we would kill the non believers and he knew that his word would be split and manipulated into many different sects, who preach and wage wars in his name.


free will is not a flaw. I could easily show why, but why don't you just give it a thought. You mean if you created the universe you would want us to be robots with no true choice? We would have no real love, life would be superficial and miserable. Free choice is a gift and it's great. What's flawed is man's foolish thinking. Besides, why should all humanity suffer because of some peoples bad choices? No it's just as God said, he will will judge eferyone according to thier works.


becuase if we are god, then god works on human logic and therefore is flawed by all the above points.

You're breaking up now.

horror business said:


I'm a human, and I prefer to think of myself as an evolved human. We as humans should have evolved throughout time. We used to not believe in God until the Romans invented it (Christianity) as a tool to oppress people and kill the ones who didn't agree.

That is erroneous in several points. Romans didn't create Christianity by any means, and Religion and belief in a creator existed long before Christianity. That's just wrong.

420ultimatesmokage said:

1. from our current understanding and evidence, the universe is not going to collapse in on itself. space contains dark energy (we do not know what it is but we can measure it) which has a repulsive force. as the space between galaxies become larger so will the dark energy repulsive force, causing the galaxies to accelerate at an increasing rate.

it's true that the universe won't collapse in on itself.


3. there is a lot of evidence for the big bang. the first was discovered by Edwin Hubble who saw that all galaxies are red shifted meaning they are all moving away from us suggesting that if you turned back the clock all galaxies would come from a single place. the second big discovery and the best evidence for the big bang was made by bell labs (this won the discovers the Nobel prize). they built a radiometer for astronomy and satellite communications but they notice something strange, everywhere they pointed it there seemed to be a constant uniform source of microwave radiation. at first they thought it was faulty equipment, then thought it might be the birds in the radiometer after discounting all of the possible problems with their set up, they realized there seemed to be microwave radiation coming from every direction of space at the same temperature.

It's interesting how you Studying Redshift is how they discovered that we are close to the center of the universe. I suggest you study that page I linked to before. This is evidence for creation.


the universe started out as a minuscule point smaller than an atom. it contained some twenty pounds of matter, the rest was energy. this point was trillions upon trillions of degrees hot and for some unknown reason it exploded for lack of a better term.

It's interesting how you state that as a fact, and then you say that it exploded for some unknown reason. This is all just conjecture and is very typical and fanciful.I woyuld give a more in depth rebuttal but I'm at the library havn't got much time.

I don't appreciate your blatant unintelligent verbal abuse and slander by the way. Despite all this you're completely wrong.

As far as the second law of thermodynamics and closed systems go, Itâ??s more usual for those qualified in physical chemistry to refer to this as an isolated system, and use the term closed system for one where energy, but not matter, can be exchanged with its surroundings.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sunâ??s nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

This energy input is necessary but not sufficient. The proverbial bull in a china shop produces disorder, but if the same bull was harnessed to a generator, this energy could be directed into useful work. Similarly, living organisms have machinery to direct the energy from sunlight or food, including the ATP synthase enzyme. This is the worldâ??s tiniest motor, so tiny that 1017 could fit into a pinhead.11 Paul Boyer and John Walker won a half share of the 1997 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for their proposal that the enzyme was a motor after the research in reference 11 (Nature articles) confirmed it. But machinery presupposes teleology (purpose), which means that the machinery must have had an intelligent source


I suggest you go to Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics (http://www.answersingenesis.org) and search on thermodynamics. I don't agree with everything they have but they are credible scientists.


evolution is one of the most well documented scientific theories we have. the evidence is endless; Neanderthal, Australopithecus, homo erectus, cro magnon man, endosymbiosis, drug resistant microbes, fossil records, dna evidence, living fossils, vestigal structures, carbon dating, radiometric dating, the list goes on

You begin to try to point out evidence for evolution, and then you start naming one after one so called evidences for evolution that have been thrown out by leadind scientists on both sides of the debate many many years ago, and also cite shaky evidence such as carbon dating which is full of assuptions and unreliable.

vistigial organs? That what you cite as evidence for evolution? I don't have time to point out why this has been totally thrown out by any reasonable person, but I can later.

The truth is you have just been fed lie after lie after lie in science class, obvious and blatant lies and they told you it was fact and you believed them.

That's pretty quick to just block somebody. I guess you won't be able to see my reponse then.

All those homos have been discarded years ago. This is just sad.



I guess I'll move over to the other thread now. If anyone wants to respond to this you can to it there.

[420ultimatesmokage]

i'm not going to spend my time replying to all your shit. it does me no good because i can tell you already have your mind made up. im not going to debate evolution with you guys anymore, you'll have to find someone else. all it does is get me pissed off and thats not what i came here for. so believe what you want to believe.

peace.

p.s king im happy to elaborate, i love teaching people new stuff

[MadSativa]

Id still like to here all your thoughts on the subjects however come with an open mind as soon as name calling and spittin is thrown I will fire back. I have no shame in taking and throwing punches and accept all actions of disiplin; as before any of thiis began I had anticipted his behavoir from the attitude. Better just me in trouble than more others. So please keep the discusion going.:pimp::pimp::pimp:

[king of the world]

is the universe infinite?

[420ultimatesmokage]

that depends on the density of the universe. there are three possible outcomes which depend on the value of omega (basically the density) being less then one, equal to one, or greater than one.

1.in a high density universe omega is greater than one. gravity would cause spacetime to curve back in on itself. this is called a closed universe, it has a finite size but no boundary. one interesting property of a closed universe is that if you go in one direction long enough you'll end up back where you started

2. in a universe where omega equals 1 is the critical universe. if you looked at space at a large scale it would be flat like euclidean geometry. this universe is infinite in extent.

3. if omega is less than one, this universe would have negative curvature. somewhat like a saddle. this universe is also infinite in extent and is called an open universe.

the problem is dark matter. some galaxies contain ten times more dark matter than luminous material. the large scale distribution of dark matter is not yet know because it only reacts gravitationally so we can only infer its presence by the way it effects material we can see. from what we can tell omega is equal to one meaning its most likely flat.

Image:End of universe.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:End_of_universe.jpg)

[natureisawesome]

I have to get going, but if the universe was infinite, the big bang couldn't have happened. Infinity by nature cannot fit inside any disclosed space. it's infinite.

[snowblind]

nature is awesome

quote
this isn't reasonable. This is fantasy land. By the way, much of our so
called evolutionary adapatations are based upon the premise that the
creature evolving had a desire to survive and experience pleasure so on
so as to motivate it to survive and evolve. You know, survival of the
fittest ( Which is true, just not as part of an evolutionary framework).
But this requires a consciousness.

firstly how is evolving a consiousness fantasy land. infact it is anything but. i dont talk about a consciounse (my spelling is crap) in the differentiation between good and bad. i talk about self realisation and communication with yourself and with others. it is more fanaticale to think the first humans thought

"wow here i am cave man, what shall i do today?"

the ideas of logic, reason, complex thought trains, contemplation these evolved. through interataction and time. they didnt just appear in our brains, we had to create the right nurological framework and connections to alllow our brain to function that way.

it is unlikely that all these functions where there in the begging and we were yet to discover them. infact this is highly unlikely, as when the brain doesn't reinforce pathways in the brain in closes them down, sometimes forever. which is why it is important to stimulate children, as it has been shown that when certain pathways are not exercised in development, they can be lost forever. such is the case of speech in ferel or neglected children.

the consousness is self realisation and realisation of self and this is as much part of our evolutionary process, as was creating fire and hunting. self realisation is something which was built over time with the creation of community, society and a life that had been elevated above the food chain. and ultimately created the idea of gods and deities to explain the things we couldnt

survival is so part of the evolutionary framework and is prevelant today. motivation to life is something inbuilt into every living creature. flowers for example. they don't have a conscious but adapt to survive. through various methods, each a different mutation and cross breading. gradually weeding out the weakest strains. the motivation to live doesn't require a consiousness as it inherentaly built into us.

we are constantly evolving, just not in aphysical sense anymore. physicallity just represents prowess and strenght which where required early on. it is said the next evolutionary step that humans have taken is the ability to deal and cope with stress. that around 10 % of society have a diferent nurological response to this and so acheive higher and succeed in the conventional terms. this is something that is not prevelant in everyone or something that was needed 2000 years ago. it is a reatively new concept but is thought by some major psycological bodies to be a accurate response to survival in our modern day and our adaption and change to our enviroment

your idea of infinity is bound by human logic which is why you can't understand the concept of what infinity is as all human logic is bound by boundaries.

such is god.

[snowblind]

Quote:
becuase if we are god, then god works on human logic and therefore is flawed by all the above points.
You're breaking up now.

ill iterate then, your pc must be whack cus i thought only phones broke up.

the bible states we where created from god.
therefore we are his sons and daughters
therefore we inherite his god traits
but we also inherit his bad ones
if every human is a representation of god on earth
then god is all the bad things aswell

or is that the snakes fault

on another note, god is a hypocrite and didnt forgive lucifer

yet he created him and therefore created an inherant evil in him

see flawed logic

was that clear

didnt break up or anything

[natureisawesome]

snowblind said:


the ideas of logic, reason, complex thought trains, contemplation these evolved. through interataction and time. they didnt just appear in our brains, we had to create the right nurological framework and connections to alllow our brain to function that way.

We had to create them? You know back in the early 1900's their was a popular idea going around within evolutionary circles. They believed that we could make ourselves evolve just by trying. They believed if you concentrated hard enough, you could force yourself to evolve and get smarter, stronger etc. And this is for real and all of this was based on an idea of Darwin of what was the mechanism for what caused evolution, as it was still unknown. He devised an idea called pangenesis.

Pangenesis: use and disuse (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-pangenesis.asp)

The idea that random mutations just happened to fall into place wildly contradicting all probablility and the laws of nature is what is fantasy.

Let me show you show you something. Here is a part of a word, see if you can guess the missing letters: cre tor . Now I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to guess that that is supposed to be creator. See, you can guess that becuase you have intelligence and a conscienceness. You can make a choice or make a different choice. But random mutations cannot guess that letter. Not only are the odds against them in guessing that letter ( which would in real life be dna), it would in all probability scramble the rest of the sentence too. It might turn out to be adsgfgfhfgh. Or it might have on letters at all. They could be totally destroyed by radiation.


flowers for example. they don't have a conscious but adapt to survive. through various methods, each a different mutation and cross breading. gradually weeding out the weakest strains.

You just don't understand genetics at all. Survival of the fittest is a reality, but just not as part of an evolutionary framework. The traits and information that cause some plants or dogs to be more fit than others is already there, in it's dna. It didn't magically appear. The problem is when you go from those kind of changes that are just genetic variability, and then you just jump to big changes that is, increase in genetic information caused by random mutations which have NEVER been observed.

There is so much I can say about all the lies and fake evidence in evolution, one thread is just not enough. Besides, isn't this supposed to be about the big bang. Your words need a response though.


your idea of infinity is bound by human logic which is why you can't understand the concept of what infinity is as all human logic is bound by boundaries.


As far as understanding anything goes, human logic is all we have. Human understanding and reasoning. That's it. If you want to scrutinise our understanding of infinity, then you have to scrutinize our entire thinking process, and well and there's really no way to do that since the only thinking and feeling capabilites you would use to scrutinize your thinking and feling capabilites are the ones you already have, and those would be in question. And even if you had back up thinking and feeling capabilites, these would necessarily come under question as well. You would come to a dead end and very likely turn to nihilism, but really this can't even be a sure thing for you since your judgement skills you used to turn to nihilism could be faulty
too. Things really just go downhill from there but ultimately you must either face or deny yourself.

Whether you choose to deny yourself or accept your own existence, either way proves that someone or something made the choice to do it - you. Therefore since you do exist, you can be absolutely sure that this much of your judgement skills is practical. You may now proceed to gain your own trust of reality. If you need help doing this I can help you.

If you don't like or trust having personal convictions or having value judgment skills then too bad, there's nothing you can do about it. It's built into you and the only thing you can do if you don't like it or trust it is to tell yourself it's all in your head and live in hipocrisy by using those judment skills in your day to day life.

Or you can be reasonable and just accept that it is reasonable and practical and wonder how such magnificent sentient manifestations such as love, virtue,courage, beauty,compassion, patience, charity, honesty etc. could be manifested by anything but another sentient being.

Aside from that, if you are saying that the universe is infinite, you have to have an understanding of what infinity is. To ask whether the universe is infinite and then say we're ignorant about what infinity is contradictory.



the bible states we where created from god.
therefore we are his sons and daughters
therefore we inherite his god traits
but we also inherit his bad ones
if every human is a representation of god on earth
then god is all the bad things aswell

or is that the snakes fault

on another note, god is a hypocrite and didnt forgive lucifer

yet he created him and therefore created an inherant evil in him

Man didn't fall because of any weakness inherited from God. Man had a choice, and he made a bad choice. His weakness was born out of his own corrupted desires. And the same is true today.

Some things God won't even forgive man for as well. God hasn't revealed all of what happened in heaven, but he has proven himself trustworthy by many infallible truths.

[natureisawesome]

p.s., stay tuned I'm typing something up to start a thread. This should get you thinking.

[natureisawesome]

I would as a last note like to add, that in dna, just as with the creator word example I showed you above, random mutations wouldn't even be able to guess the hidden letter at all. Period. Why not? Because For mutations to take place, there has to be genetic information to begin with. for example radiation to affect it and a muitation to take place. So If it was crektor, then it could mutate it (this is of course, much simplified) and there is a very very very slight possibility the letter could be changed to the right one. But the same mutation that hit that letter could hit the other letters too just as easily, so that the whole thing is totally randomized or destroyed. Genetic information btw, is very very very very fragile, and for it to survive it needs to be preserved within an already living cell, with the ability to survive and pass on it's information.

If you read through a high school science book you may find them talking about mutations and evolution, and they'll talk about good mutations and show you a picture of a bad one. Fruit flies is a popular example. They've been hitting fruitflies with radiation for decades and decades and decades, but they have never seen an increase in genetic information. They've gotten lots and lots of deformaties, and that's it.

An even more incredible fact about dna is that it needs rna to read it, like a computer program needs an os to read it. So few people even partially grasp the incredible complexity of this system, it is so complex and amazing. The human mind itself is hardly understood. We only understand a tiny tiny fraction of all the brains wirings and functions. When it comes to that kind of stuff, humans remind me of chimpanzees banging on the keyboard.

It's one thing to say dna evolved, but for rna to evolve at the same time. NO. The first is not possible and the second is laughable.

[420ultimatesmokage]

this thread was supposed to be about the big bang. take your evolution talk elsewhere.

[natureisawesome]

we're all "guilty". btw, you're not a moderator so you should mind your own business.

[MadSativa]

thanks nature caseu I dont even wana start but we are all interested in what ever anyone has to say on the subject and last tim I look the theroy of evolution happend in the univers. Alright alright my bad I like what every one has to say though pleas keep up the discusion.

[420ultimatesmokage]

we're all "guilty". btw, you're not a moderator so you should mind your own business.

no im going to say what i want to say i don't care if you don't want to see it. evolution happened billions of years after the big bang so in the context of this discussion, they have nothing to do with each other.

[Quantummist]

Absolutely No Thing happened before the BB..

[THClord]

I'll tell you what happened before the Big Bang. The same thing that happened after the Big Bang.

Think of it like this: Big Bang -> expansion of universe -> contraction of universe -> everything is in a huge ass black hole again eventually -> another big bang
It's a cycle. You'd be stupid to think that out big bang is the first big bang.

Just look at history. First people thought the Earth was the center of the universe. WRONG. Then they thought the sun was the center of the unvierse. WRONG.

I would take it even further. I think there is not one big bang, but many, exept they are soooooo far away that we can't see that far. Or more precisely, not much radiation makes it this far.

IMO it's a stupid idea to think that all matter in the universe has to go back into the same ball before in can explode again. There are many solar systems orbiting each other to form galaxies, and also many galaxies orbiting each other to form what we know today. I think we can take it one step further. There are products of many big bangs that are orbiting each other to form the universe. I think that there could be a big bang happening every day, except it's just happening very far away.
And there does not need to be a center of the universe. It's just stupid. If space is nothing, how could it possible have a border?

One more metaphos to close. Not long ago people were convinced that we are the only intelligent form that exist. Today mathematitians and biologists agree that based on the size of the universe the chance is like 99.99999% that we are not.

The correct way of thinking is always assuming that we are part of a cycle and not just something that happens once and is over.

One more metaphor. Before Darwin's generation, noone beleived in evolution. Even after evolution was discovered, it was thought that, yes evolution happened, but it is not going on today. This was the scientifically accepted viewpoint. We know that they were wrong, but there is a lot to be learned.

If you have two choices, and none of them can be proved, the one that promotes sustainable cycles and the possibility endless mathematical possibilies instead of just one is the correct one 99.9% of the time.

[MadSativa]

Absolutely No Thing happened before the BB..

or is it nothing and everything??? by the way your name is cool

[natureisawesome]

Justum17 said:



Well, time is physical, meaning that it can slow down and speed up, the same as light.

So,
God is outside of that dimension, just as we're in a 3d dimension.

And there are atleast 12 dimensions that are known.

Listen to some Chuck Missler

no, time isn't physical. And I have heard that light may be slowing down. This would clear up a lot of things for creationists.

How do they know there are 12 dimensions?

[THClord]

Time is physical, time is affected by elevation.

And my bad, it's 10 known dimensions, and i believe 12 probable (dont quote me on the 12)
Bullshit

Read Einstein's theory of relativity pls. Time is slowed by acceleration, not elevation. And so time goes slower by those who are moving faster. Whatever, this explanation is incomplete. Google it.

And it is physically impossible to prove a 4th dimension if you are stuck in the 3rd. Why are there 10? I'd be very happy if you'd prove me wrong on this one.

I usually just ignore god posts, but you just had too many things wrong in your post.


Wouldnt it be possible to you non-creationists to think that God might just be outside of the dimensions of time/space? Its a very plausible thing.
This is like saying, "There's two possibilities when I buy a lottery ticket. Either I win or I lose. So the chances of winning are 50%." A possibility doesn't mean anything....

If god exists for sure, then of course it might be a significant possibility. But I'd put the chances of god existing at more like 0.00000000000001%. Watch the first 20 min of Zeitgeist on google video pls. If you will still feel like proving god exists after watching it, be my guest.

[THClord]

because the Earth rotates, and points at different elevations on Earth will make different sized circular paths relative to the center of the Earth in the same time. Larger path/same time = larger acceleration for higher elevations

I'll watch the vid you posted now

[THClord]

String theory, heh. They leave the answer to my question to the very last sentence lol.

As the name suggests it is a theory, a popular one atm. I guess the 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time are for sure, cuz that's what we live in, but all the rest is speculation, and even now some of today greatest physicists are trying to determine what theory of many theories is correct.
I havn't done my research on this subject, so I can't say much. It is pretty interesting how far reaching conclusions you can draw from quantum mechanics.

Well, I guess I can see how you'd see that god could be constantly jumping from one dimension to another in our viewpoint, and he can do that because he lives in a higher dimension. It makes sense.

[THClord]

But still, two different places
two different times
still both correct.

Yep, that's what Einstein's theories are all about.

[natureisawesome]

Well, I guess I can see how you'd see that god could be constantly jumping from one dimension to another in our viewpoint, and he can do that because he lives in a higher dimension. It makes sense.

God is eternal then he is also the foundation of all existence. Therefore if there are other dimensions there is no way he can totally fit into any dimension. He's too big.

[Quantummist]

Very slowly but very surely gravity is pulling everything back together again, eventually all matter will join a giant clump that will keep gaining density until it explodes out again like the last big bang

Thats just not true guy.. The universe is expanding ..and its expanding at an ever increasing rate. The more it expands the faster its expanding..

There is a view that at some point the total mass will hit a point where the expansion stops and it starts to compress but there is absolutely no evidence that that is happening. This view is based on the observed mass and a model that says that at some point the total gravitational effect across the universe will stay the same but the energy converted into kinetic (and other forms) at the time of the BB will decrease untill the gravity overall over powers the energy imparted to expand...

But the existing body of evidence shows a ever faster expansion rate. Goggle the COBI observations to get a bit of insight on the present understanding of the construct.

Paul

[natureisawesome]

Quantumist:


Thats just not true guy.. The universe is expanding ..and its expanding at an ever increasing rate. The more it expands the faster its expanding..

There is a view that at some point the total mass will hit a point where the expansion stops and it starts to compress but there is absolutely no evidence that that is happening. This view is based on the observed mass and a model that says that at some point the total gravitational effect across the universe will stay the same but the energy converted into kinetic (and other forms) at the time of the BB will decrease untill the gravity overall over powers the energy imparted to expand...

But the existing body of evidence shows a ever faster expansion rate. Goggle the COBI observations to get a bit of insight on the present understanding of the construct.

The evidence shows there's not enough mass for recontraction.

[Quantummist]

You believe.. To believe is to set aside logical discourse and there is no use in debate ..

I, on the other hand, Believe in Nothing.. Ever.. I know, I think I know or I do Not Know , that being the case any discussion is useless.

I could argue each and every point you try to make on your version of god, There are many, many versions that have filled mens minds over our very,very,very short time of cognizances, but none would be conceivable by a believer.. so I won't get anymore into such a personal issue..

You should hold your beliefs close as from your post you have no idea of state of the art in science , how evolution works, how the bible was put together, how quantum mechanics works, etc. You see miracles where known science dwells ..

Simple observations are over looked like Adam and Eve having two sons.. where did their wives come from to populate this little ball.. At the size of Noah's Ark as stated in the bible how did he fit 2 of each Bug on it much less anything else. If you wish to conversate in a science forum it would be good to actually understand science first.

Just MHO

[natureisawesome]

Quantummist:


You believe.. To believe is to set aside logical discourse and there is no use in debate ..

Where did this come from? And no you're wrong. I've said several times now that all of our logic is built upon beliefs, axioms if you will. Your axiom being that your mind and logic is a valid tool to begin with. If you'd like to understand how my faith is valid in a debate, I suggest you review my comments in the thread I started here: http://boards.cannabis.com/spirituality/129952-path-faith-science.html

In any case, I don't know where all this came from. All I said was that there wasn't enough mass for reconstruction. Are you trying to cut me out of a debate because you don't like my beliefs?


I on the other hand, Believe in Nothing

If that's what you believe, then you're ignorant of your own process of logical deduction.


You should hold your beliefs close as from your post you have no idea of state of the art in science , how evolution works, how the bible was put together, how quantum mechanics works, etc. You see miracles where known science dwells ..

These are personal attacks, and I'm really suprised that you would make such unfounded comments. How do you know whether I know how the bible was put together or not? No, I admit I don't know how quantum mechanics work. And I don't need to. I don't see how evolution works, because it doesn't.


Simple observations are over looked like Adam and Eve having two sons.. where did their wives come from to populate this little ball.. At the size of Noah's Ark as stated in the bible how did he fit 2 of each Bug on it much less anything else. If you wish to conversate in a science forum it would be good to actually understand science first.

I can easily answer both these questions, but I won't. I'll let you suffer in your ignorance.

You have a nasty attitude and I see no sign of maturity. I think that should be addressed before anyone even considers talking let alone debating with you.

[Quantummist]

or is it nothing and everything??? by the way your name is cool

Thanks.. the names sorta stuck for a long time.. and its No Thing. I tried to do a play on words,, until time 0 there was not matter.. So before the BB there was No Things there was energy and it would have occupied no space and had infinite density, was ultimately chaotic, and was of a unified form that was indefinable.

Only after time 0 when matter was converted could we define space and the relative interactions of all the little balls of stuff..

So before the BB there was No Thing

[MadSativa]

their was never a time 0, time transeds dimention and the big bang. Before our big band I think their was just the same as now but different. I too think that big bangs happen quite often, and I like to think no matter how often they happen were are still unique as a lifeform.

[Quantummist]

their was never a time 0, time transeds dimention and the big bang. Before our big band I think their was just the same as now but different. I too think that big bangs happen quite often, and I like to think no matter how often they happen were are still unique as a lifeform.

I would like to think we're unique also but being that we are but the hair, on the back of the mite, on the back of the flea, on the back of the bird, on the back of the elephant, I tend to think we are only wonderious in our own egotistical minds.

Look about the Universe we are not even detectable as being here from just a measly short 100 lights years away. Man has long thought he was the center of the universe that all of what we observe is there for US alone. Thats but the self serving ego of a tiny little creature that on the scale of our universe is not significant enough to rate a glance.

Say out there somewhere theres a planet that orbits a twin sun and has a population many times ours. Should they have the ego to think they are the reason we are here, That they are the creatures the whole universe was made for.

Or should not we think that we are but the host for bacteria that rule this world as there are more of them in you than You in you. And since we have only walked this ball a few million years and only began to seek to know the universe a few thousands years ago should not the Birds be the ones that should have the ego as they have thrived for some 200 millions of years and for all we know their minds may understand the universe much better than we. and it is us thats not evolved enough to have brains able to understand what they take for granted or even the mental ability to ask them.

"Man is to stupid to know how stupid he is" prm

[andruejaysin]

should not the Birds be the ones that should have the ego as they have thrived for some 200 millions of years and for all we know their minds may understand the universe much better than we. and it is us thats not evolved enough to have brains able to understand what they take for granted or even the mental ability to ask them.

"Man is to stupid to know how stupid he is" prmPerhaps, but the fact they spend hours fighting their reflextion in a window argues against it.

[Coelho]

"Before the big bang, God was creating the hell for those who ask such questions" - some witty one :p

[andruejaysin]

It's really like asking "where did god come from". The most basic questin of all, why is there something, rather than nothing. And neither science or religion offers any answer.

[THClord]

This is so stupid. It looks like I'm talking to myself, cuz whoever I was talking to deleted his posts lol.

I never delete posts. You can't take back what you said. You can say you were wrong, but you still have to admit to saying it.

[obxguy86]

I remember reading a few months back on Learn More at Space.com. From Satellites to Stars, NASA information, Astronomy, the Sun and the Planets, we have your information here. (http://www.space.com) ,or another similar site, about scientists looking into a way to view beyond the beginning of our universe. There was a way they can fold the outward acceleration back in on itself to view what came before the big bang. Pretty interesting. I culdn't find the story though. That'd be intense to see though. :stoned:

I myself think a cyclic, or renewable universe with perhaps many thousands of smaller universes budding off is most plausible. This is similar to a string theory universe where there is one large universe that compresses into another smaller but progressivly bigger universe(such as our is accelerating outwards today) until it reaches a max point and starts shrinking down into another new universe. :thumbsup:

Here are some more interesting links regarding the beginning of the universe:
1. SPACE.com -- New Theory: Universe Was Born in a Black Hole (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/white_hole_030917.html)
2.SPACE.com -- In New Theory of Universe, Time Never Ends (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/new_universe_020425.html)
3.Sentient Developments: The Universe is Freakin' Massive, Dude (http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2004/05/universe-is-freakin-massive-dude.html)


THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING!! IT ISN"T BEING BUNCHED BACK TOGETHER BY GRAVITY YET. Dark matter and Dark energy act as a negative gravity and pushes everything away. Galaxies and local galaxiy systems aren't affected as much b/c the gravitational pull is soo intense, but in the spaces between the clusters of galaxies... space is expanding. :wtf:... yea
SPACE.com -- Universe Expansion is Accelerating, UK and Australian Researchers Say (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/universe_expansion_020320.html)

The universe is just huge! Lets look at it this way....seriously check this out!!
According to the standard inflationary model of cosmology, the visible portion of our universe, the one mapped by our telescopes is an infinitesimally small speck in a much larger universe of at least 10 to the power 35 light-years across!

Admittedly this number is really, really big, and almost impossible to imagine. So lets shrink everything down, WAY down, just so we can get a better grasp of it. Let's imagine that the entire universe that we have seen in all the worlds telescopes, all the galaxies, all trillion of them, extending out 13 billion light years in every direction is shrunk down to the size of a golf ball.

If we do a volume calculation, the actual universe contains 10 to the power 60 of those golf balls! Wow, I guess we didn't shrink things down far enough, but this will have to do. So how big a volume would 10 to the power 60 golf balls fill up? Try a sphere 850 light years across! So imagine a mass of golf balls that big, and each one of those golf balls contains all the stars and galaxies that we can see through our telescopes!! :stoned:

It's pretty intense when you sit down and think about it, especialy when your ripped on some good "thinking" herb.:jointsmile::stoned:

[obxguy86]

I remember reading a few months back on Learn More at Space.com. From Satellites to Stars, NASA information, Astronomy, the Sun and the Planets, we have your information here. (http://www.space.com) ,or another similar site, about scientists looking into a way to view beyond the beginning of our universe. There was a way they can fold the outward acceleration back in on itself to view what came before the big bang. Pretty interesting. I culdn't find the story though. That'd be intense to see though. :stoned:

I myself think a cyclic, or renewable universe with perhaps many thousands of smaller universes budding off is most plausible. This is similar to a string theory universe where there is one large universe that compresses into another smaller but progressivly bigger universe(such as our is accelerating outwards today) until it reaches a max point and starts shrinking down into another new universe. :thumbsup:

Here are some more interesting links regarding the beginning of the universe:
1. SPACE.com -- New Theory: Universe Was Born in a Black Hole (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/white_hole_030917.html)
2.SPACE.com -- In New Theory of Universe, Time Never Ends (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/new_universe_020425.html)
3.Sentient Developments: The Universe is Freakin' Massive, Dude (http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2004/05/universe-is-freakin-massive-dude.html)


THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING!! IT ISN"T BEING BUNCHED BACK TOGETHER BY GRAVITY YET. Dark matter and Dark energy act as a negative gravity and pushes everything away. Galaxies and local galaxiy systems aren't affected as much b/c the gravitational pull is soo intense, but in the spaces between the clusters of galaxies... space is expanding. :wtf:... yea
SPACE.com -- Universe Expansion is Accelerating, UK and Australian Researchers Say (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/universe_expansion_020320.html)

The universe is just huge! Lets look at it this way....seriously check this out!!
According to the standard inflationary model of cosmology, the visible portion of our universe, the one mapped by our telescopes is an infinitesimally small speck in a much larger universe of at least 10 to the power 35 light-years across!

Admittedly this number is really, really big, and almost impossible to imagine. So lets shrink everything down, WAY down, just so we can get a better grasp of it. Let's imagine that the entire universe that we have seen in all the worlds telescopes, all the galaxies, all trillion of them, extending out 13 billion light years in every direction is shrunk down to the size of a golf ball.

If we do a volume calculation, the actual universe contains 10 to the power 60 of those golf balls! Wow, I guess we didn't shrink things down far enough, but this will have to do. So how big a volume would 10 to the power 60 golf balls fill up? Try a sphere 850 light years across! So imagine a mass of golf balls that big, and each one of those golf balls contains all the stars and galaxies that we can see through our telescopes!! :stoned:

It's pretty intense when you sit down and think about it, especialy when your ripped on some good "thinking" herb.:jointsmile::stoned:

[macattack]

One theory says that outside of the universe is the inflation field. in this place large amounts of pure energy cause matter to be created (big bangs) in most cases the matter is thrown out into oblivion. however, in some places the properties of the field allow for bubbles to form in which the expansion rate is lower. these bubbles are universes.

[Patriot57]

It has been shown that the universe is not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating. Dark Energy is what causes the expansion, but no one knows what dark energy is. Science currently makes no prediction of what happened before the big bang. The correct answer to the original question is, "I don't know".

[dragonrider]

Science currently makes no prediction of what happened before the big bang. The correct answer to the original question is, "I don't know".

That is correct.

Current physics cannot address what happened at the exact moment of the Big Bang. All the equations that work so well up to that moment break down at that point, and no one knows what happened "before." (There technically is no "before," because time began with the Big Bang.)

Currently it is believed that some kind of force called Dark Energy is driving an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. It is believed that the universe will continue to expand, thin out and cool down until it is dark, cold and empty.

I always take that kind of prediction with a grain of salt, bacause our understanding of the universe is always changing (for example, Dark Energy and Dark Matter were unknown just a few years ago, and no one knows for sure what they are yet). No one knows what we will find in the next few years to change our understanding of the ultimate fate of the universe. I'm hoping that the begining can be better understood, maybe through string theory or M theory, or some other crazy-ass thing that hasn't even been dreamed up yet --- it is probably not far away.

[greenhorngrower]

Nature has placed these questions beyond our concious reach. Life lived and life understood do not go hand in hand... if we understood the creation of the universe we would probably be gods creating our own. lol

Every question answered will bring about many more.. its a never ending rabbit hole, and once you do make it to the bottom, the truth is ripped out of your grasp and you start right back at the beginning of the hole. Existence is a cycle.. wether or not it was intelligently designed is puzzling...

[andruejaysin]

The big bang is a lie.
The sun is just the right distance from the earth.
The earth has just the right temperature for life (with modest variations).
The planet has just the right gravity.
The earth holds a incredibly sufficient system to support plants and life and recycle energy.
The earth spins around the sun at just the right distance, a little bit farther and we'd freeze, a little bit closer and we'd burn. It also spins at just the right speed.
It should not surprise us to look around and see conditions which permit our existence. To the contrary, it would be very odd indeed should we see otherwise.

[steme]

Once we figure out what dark energy is. These questions might be simple. We still dont know were or what 70% of our universe is.

[flanders]

honestly, there isn't an answer for this question other than there isn't a start, and isn't a finish...asking this question will only lead to more questions, and infinite cycle of inquiries. time has no start, and no end, it's infinite..

as for other life outside of the milky way, i believe there is but I'm surprised we haven't picked up any signs from all the antennas/sensors/whatever else we have monitoring space. a theory i share with my dad on this subject is that we are just a single cell that is smaller than infinitely many other universes, and larger than infinitely many universes.. reality is what you make it.. there is no way to prove that i'm real, that you're real, or anything is real so you have to kind of accept that, and after i've done a little bit of researching into this and conversations with various other people, i've come to realize that you have to make the best of what you have, and live life to the fullest :)

[Diffusion]

i was high one day and was thinking about the big bang and stuff.
and thought what happened before the big bang? scientist always talk about the big bang and everything that happened after that, but none talk about before the big bang?

It is impossible for us to know exactly what conditions were present before the Big Bang. Using theoretical physics and such, we have been able to trace back the history of the universe all the way up to 1 Plank time (5.4 x 1^-44 seconds) after the big bang, but before this point all physical laws and mathematics breaks down and chaos rules, thus conditions are impossible to determine.

Some scientists suggest the cyclic model of the universe in which each big bang eventually concludes with a big crunch and repeats itself, but recent estimations are showing that the universe will almost certainly continue to expand forever, given that the universe is flat and not open or closed.

[smokey91]

History channel has a show called before the big bang, something about space pockets i think

[Acouwaila]

im sorry, but fuck explanation and fuck science. I mean yeah, its totally cool to study whats around you and what the fuck is goin on, but any one with common sense would understand that they aren't going to find any type of answer to explain everything. Everything works itself around in a circle. The answer is already here and we dont need no fuckin test tubes to see it. We've got what we've got....look at the world right now...look where it is....look whats out there....man we're all alone on this fucking planet. This planet with creatures of all colors and sizes and creatures that change colors to match the environment, and huge oceans and an endless sky and universe. Could your LIFE, really be YOURS....no, its the fucking universes so give it back...it made you, and you made it....sun doesnt give light to the moon assuming the moons gonna owe him one. lol linkin park...their old shit was good

[MadSativa]

their are big bangs happinin all the time as many as 2 a second or even more. so the answer is what happend before is right now happend before. also trillions of years after, depending on how you want to look at. It its important to keep in mind that the big bang was not one occurance or even a rare occurance, the univerise is not slowing down but, speeding up. And yes their is answers to everything but not one universal answer. Answers change with the equations and everything is an equation.

[THClord]

Either time did not exist, and it is the beginning, or


Before the big bang there was another universe everything was eventually pulled into that small ball by gravity, just so it could blow up and start over again.
Possible the Big Bang isn't THE big bang, but just A big bang. Maybe very far away there are more galaxies that are from another big bang, and not our big bang.


I think the second one is correct.

[Mr. Clandestine]

Maybe very far away there are more galaxies that are from another big bang, and not our big bang.

But the big bang theory isn't purported to have created galaxies, but instead the ENTIRE universe originated from it. From nothing came everything we know to exist. No recollection of how this matter happened to appear out of nowhere, just blind faith that it did.

Believing in this theory makes believing in intelligent design just as plausible. They're both deemed as impossibilities, only one generally backs up their assertation with historical religious scripture, where the other doesn't. Science as we know it cannot define either, and therefore cannot confirm the truth and validity of either. Beyond this, we start delving into the metaphysical... which is far beyond the realms of science.

[carinia]

Its gotta be cyclical, otherwise where did everything come from? Not that it being cyclical really answers that question...
Ive always found the idea of time travel intriguing, so that leads me to believe there are other dimensions that we cannot see or experience, and that these dimensions affect our 'laws' of life. Such as the constant speed of light. In certain ways we are begining to see that these laws can be modified and changed.

Basically I think there is sooo much stuff out there we dont know, that its going to take us a very, very long time to figure it out. :) Man, I love watching discovery channel wacked out.

[human8]

wasn't it the Great Inhale?

[Diffusion]

But the big bang theory isn't purported to have created galaxies, but instead the ENTIRE universe originated from it. From nothing came everything we know to exist. No recollection of how this matter happened to appear out of nowhere, just blind faith that it did.

Not true. You're making incorrect assumption that the Big Bang theory claims that the universe was created out of "nothing" or "appeared out of nowhere", which is not the case at all. The Big Bang theory describes that the universe was once a very small, infinitely dense singularity, from which the observable universe we see today expanded from and evolved through a series of chemical and particle interactions. For the expansion to occur there must have been already pre-existing matter. How did it get there? We're not sure, but that is not what the Big Bang theory seeks to explain. The theory only seeks to explain the expansion of the pre-existing singularity into the observable universe we see today.


Believing in this theory makes believing in intelligent design just as plausible. They're both deemed as impossibilities, only one generally backs up their assertation with historical religious scripture, where the other doesn't. Science as we know it cannot define either, and therefore cannot confirm the truth and validity of either. Beyond this, we start delving into the metaphysical... which is far beyond the realms of science.

Again, not true. The Big Bang theory is seen as an impossibility only by people who have an extremely limited understanding of what the theory is, what it states, and what evidence we have to support it. How can you expect someone to accept the theory when their entire understanding of it is wrong?

And also, why do you assume that the Big Bang theory and Intelligent Design are mutually exclusive? We can infer everything we know about the Big Bang theory from observable evidence we see today - the exponential expansion of the universe, the cosmic background radiation, abundance of light elements over heavy elements, etc. This is what we see, and this is exactly what one would expect from a "Big Bang" universe. One can easily assume that the Big Bang expansion is simply God's method of creation rather than rejecting the theory all together.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

We don't know yet; so that proves God did it. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Clandestine]

The Big Bang theory describes that the universe was once a very small, infinitely dense singularity, from which the observable universe we see today expanded from and evolved through a series of chemical and particle interactions.

Granted, but since there is absolutely no explanation as to how this infinitely dense blob of matter just happened to appear in the middle of a great void of time and space, we'll just have to admit that we simply don't know what we don't know. Hence the reason the "Big Bang theory" is still a theory, it's still plagued by large amounts of speculation. Until science can definitively prove that this matter existed in the beginning, there is reasonable cause to reject the underlying hypothesis... because for the most part, we can't accurately describe what we don't understand. We can throw in all sorts of conjecture, based on more speculation about the random observable facts that we can see... but that still doesn't verify the theory.


We can infer everything we know about the Big Bang theory from observable evidence we see today - the exponential expansion of the universe, the cosmic background radiation, abundance of light elements over heavy elements, etc.

You're right. You can infer that this observable evidence directly correlates to the occurrence of a Big Bang. But, you can't explain where the infinite amounts of energy originated that blasted this matter forth into the universe... you can't actually observe the universe as it expands... you can't explain why the dispersed matter is "clumped" together as opposed to having been evenly distributed... and you can't actually determine which elements are more abundant. You can only speculate, and you should know that this is not science. This is actually where I find many purported "scientists" begin to dig around the realms of metaphysical explanations, and this is where they lose all credibility of actually being called scientists. There are also several other theories that just as accurately describe how this "evidence" could point out our origins, but they're equally as speculative. And now that we've got these great thinkers like Dawkins drooling over mathematical consistencies and spewing forth long-winded explanations, the Big Bang theory is just the most overly hyped fad of todays 'evolutionary scientists'. Nothing more. In another thousand years, if our world still exists, I have no reason to believe that this theory won't have become outdated and replaced. But in a thousand years, again... if we're still here, I have plenty of reason to believe that the opinions of a Christian will have remained unchanged.


One can easily assume that the Big Bang expansion is simply God's method of creation rather than rejecting the theory all together.

One can just as easily assume that the expansion is based mostly on intangibility and hypothetical scenarios that best "fit" the intended theory. Denying this doesn't make me ignorant of the facts, because for the most part, there are none that directly correlate to the proposed theory. As long as we're free to speculate, you have no authority to tell me that I'm wrong. Likewise for myself.

[Coelho]

Ive always found the idea of time travel intriguing, so that leads me to believe there are other dimensions that we cannot see or experience, and that these dimensions affect our 'laws' of life. Such as the constant speed of light. In certain ways we are begining to see that these laws can be modified and changed.

Basically I think there is sooo much stuff out there we dont know, that its going to take us a very, very long time to figure it out. :) Man, I love watching discovery channel wacked out.

I think this way also... even being a scientist (or maybe cause of this), i strongly believe that the physical world (the one which we usually can see and which is thought to "obey" the physical laws) is only one "layer" of the world... i believe that there are another non-physical worlds "superimposed" to the physical one, and all of them interact (even if only barely) with each another.
If you like this kind of stuff, maybe you will like to look this site: Beyond the Physical (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dondeg/bpweb/BP_Index.htm)
It explains a LOT of things... and its accessible for everybody, without need of scientifical background (but having it helps a lot...).


One can easily assume that the Big Bang expansion is simply God's method of creation

Exactly... the Big Bang theory says that in the beggining everything was concentrated in a very small volume, and everything was energy. Well... light is energy. So, when its said: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Gen 1:3, it may as well be a description of the creation of that primordial state of the universe.
Also, after some expansion, the energy stopped to fill all the universe, and it would account for the separation between light and darkness described in the next verse : "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness." Gen 1:4.


We don't know yet; so that proves God did it. :rolleyes:

Why not? In the end, it may be right...

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Why not? In the end, it may be right...


Well, the thing is... I'm really sure that the universe was designed by trillions upon trillions of invisible omniscient pixies. It's impossible to disprove the pixies, and the pixie theory fits perfectly into the missing piece of the creation puzzle.


My point being; the pixie hypothesis and the God hypothesis are both the same thing; a hypothesis. There is no actual evidence pointing to God, but rather God is assumed to be the only option because he fits so well where we can't explain the unexplained. As I showed with my pixies though, all you need is an active imagination to think of something that perfectly explains anything unexplainable. There's no extra empiracle evidence to give God more validity than my pixies.


When you really analyze the notion of God, it's like somebody decided to design the perfect logical explanation. "Ok, here's what we do; we think of a guy that can do everything, knows everything, is infinite in every respect, and he created the universe." When you design the infinite being, he will of course fit into every explanation.

[Coelho]

Gandalf, the idea of God was not a rational creation of someones mind. It comes from peoples mystical experiences. When they were in such alterated states of consciousness (where reason is usually useless or even meaningless), they percieved that there was a "source" from everything that was and is (and will be), and when returned to "normal" waking consciousness, they called it "God", and tried to fit it in human concepts, for describing it to others.
But as God is far beyond any human concept, they had a hard time doing it, and the best they could was say that it was everywhere, that it could do anything, that it knew everything, and so... this descriptions being only the best way they could fit the greatness of God in mere human concepts and words. God is beyond words, beyond concepts, beyond anything our human minds can reach.
But people insists in treating it as one concept, as one thing that the human mind can understand. And doing so, obviously they are not talking about the God that Is, but about a human concept that i will call god (without capital letter).
So, IMHO, anybody who never did "see" God, or rather, who never had a mystical experience and percieved Him as He is, simply dont know what they are talking about when talks about God. It includes myself, as i never had such mystical experience (yet). But, from what ive understood about this experiences, im sure that my explanation will make sense to the ones who actually had such experiences, and who are the only rightly entitled to talk about God.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Gandalf, the idea of God was not a rational creation of someones mind. It comes from peoples mystical experiences. When they were in such alterated states of consciousness (where reason is usually useless or even meaningless), they percieved that there was a "source" from everything that was and is (and will be), and when returned to "normal" waking consciousness, they called it "God", and tried to fit it in human concepts, for describing it to others.
But as God is far beyond any human concept, they had a hard time doing it, and the best they could was say that it was everywhere, that it could do anything, that it knew everything, and so... this descriptions being only the best way they could fit the greatness of God in mere human concepts and words. God is beyond words, beyond concepts, beyond anything our human minds can reach.
But people insists in treating it as one concept, as one thing that the human mind can understand. And doing so, obviously they are not talking about the God that Is, but about a human concept that i will call god (without capital letter).
So, IMHO, anybody who never did "see" God, or rather, who never had a mystical experience and percieved Him as He is, simply dont know what they are talking about when talks about God. It includes myself, as i never had such mystical experience (yet). But, from what ive understood about this experiences, im sure that my explanation will make sense to the ones who actually had such experiences, and who are the only rightly entitled to talk about God.

Damn Coelho, that's the best description of God I've ever heard! That's actually what I believe myself. You look at some of the amazing revelations of Shamans, the Koran, Bible, Torah, The Buddha Dharma, and so much more, and there is definately some outside force influencing ones knowledge. I'm not actually an atheist, but A-deist (a non-belief in dieties).

Deifying God is such a primitive way of understanding the forces of the universe. And not just in making God a "him", but making the source of everything a separate conscious being in and of itself. What you described perfectly explains what I've been thinking. But this is why I don't think we even need to call this force "God". Some call it the Tao, some call it space-time under the rules of string theory, some call it the ultimate nature of everything; the true link diminishing the barriers between supposed "nothingness" and "somethingness".

Good description anyway. :thumbsup:

[Coelho]

Im glad that you did understand. :thumbsup:
In fact, i arrived at this description after "mixing", or rather comparing what i knew about Christianism, Buddhism, Shamanism, Occultism, and some more... i did realize that there was something common underlying all this religions... and i only call it God because i was born and raised Christian, and am half (or more) Christian myself... but of course the name we give to it is what matters less... as the important is our notion, how we imagine it.
And i sincerely hope to meet Him (or It)... one day, who knows?...

[dragonrider]

Granted, but since there is absolutely no explanation as to how this infinitely dense blob of matter just happened to appear in the middle of a great void of time and space, we'll just have to admit that we simply don't know what we don't know.

According to quantum physics, particles do arise out of the void all the time. Virtual particle pairs, a particle and an anti-particle, arise out of the vacuum and then recombine and disappear in immeasurably short periods of time. This is called a vacuum fluctuation. The larger the particle, the less statistically likely it is to appear, and the shorter the period of time that it lasts. So there is a remote, but statisticaly possible chance that a virtual elephant might appear in your living room, but it would be gone so quickly that it wouldn't really have any effect.

One model for the Big Bang holds that the Universe arose as a vacuum fluctuation. It was an incredibly massive singularity that arose out of the vacuum. Ordinarily such a massive vacuum fluctuation would reconcile its virtual particle pairs in an unimaginabley short period of time and disappear back into the void, but because of the density and pressure, the singularity curved space-time and triggered a massive inflation of space-time. During this super inflation, the virtual particle pairs become irreconcilably separated in space and a stable universe resulted which was not going to instantaneously fall back into oblivion.

So it is not right to say that there is "absolutely no explanation as to how this infinitely dense blob of matter just happened to appear in the middle of a great void of time and space." It arose as a vacuum fluctuation.

[Mr. Clandestine]

So it is not right to say that there is "absolutely no explanation as to how this infinitely dense blob of matter just happened to appear in the middle of a great void of time and space." It arose as a vacuum fluctuation.

I apologize, I should have said "there's no empirical data that proves how this infinitely dense blob of matter happened to appear in the midst of a great void of time and space".

I know there are many hypothetical situations, and some of them can be defined very well by quantum physics, astronomical physics, etc., but for many people, my hypothetical scenario for the origin of the universe works just as well. My scenario being: "A Creator spoke it into existence." Maybe I'm just simple minded (I'm definitely no quantum physicist! :D), but this scenario makes the most sense to me.

I have a hard time trusting science on some of these issues, because most of the time, science simply makes educated guesses based on other educated guesses. And that which cannot be observed and replicated isn't science. In this case, it's speculation on an infinitely grand scale.

Thank you, though, for your feedback. It's always interesting for me to read what others think about the matter. It certainly is a broad, but monumental, topic.

[Psycho4Bud]

and thought what happened before the big bang?

Foreplay of course.:D

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[dragonrider]

I know there are many hypothetical situations, and some of them can be defined very well by quantum physics, astronomical physics, etc., but for many people, my hypothetical scenario for the origin of the universe works just as well. My scenario being: "A Creator spoke it into existence." Maybe I'm just simple minded (I'm definitely no quantum physicist! :D), but this scenario makes the most sense to me.

There is nothing in quantum physics or any cosmological theory that says that a Creator did not "speak it into existence." The physics addresses How the universe came into being --- the physical mechanism and process. Your answer is a possible explanation for Why.

To my mind the two explanations answer different questions. To a physicist, a Creator is not necessary to understanding how the process unfolded. And to anyone who believes in a Creator, physics is not important to why the universe came into being. It is certainly possible to believe in both. A person could easily believe that a Creator spoke the universe into existence, and the Big Bang is how that universe came into being.

[stinkyattic]

Foreplay of course.
Oh you SUCK I was gonna post that lol!!!

[Mr. Clandestine]

There is nothing in quantum physics or any cosmological theory that says that a Creator did not "speak it into existence." The physics addresses How the universe came into being --- the physical mechanism and process. Your answer is a possible explanation for Why.

I can agree with this stance. And I can also admit that I could stand to be more educated on the facts behind the Big Bang. It's just difficult for me, as someone who's really never needed to place much faith or emphasis in the theories and facts, to accept it as infallible. I can see why some scientists and physicists would need to press the issue, as their reputation and livelihoods may very well depend on their answer. Luckily, though, these restrictions don't apply in my profession(s).

I'd love to know beyond a shadow of a doubt - without theories or speculation, just the facts - exactly what happened in the beginning (and "wtf happened before" :)). I'm just not sure that I'll find out in this lifetime... but I'm fine with that, too.

[dragonrider]

My scenario being: "A Creator spoke it into existence."

If you believe these two...


Foreplay of course.:D

Have a good one!:jointsmile:


Oh you SUCK I was gonna post that lol!!!

... the Creator did not so much "speak it into existence" as he did spooge it into existence.

This is an excellent theory! All the universe is the result of a cosmic orgasm. After an delicious dinner, a good bottle of wine, some soft music, warm candle light, nice foreplay, and some sweet, sweet lovin' the universe just "came" into existence. Our existence will last until the sheets are washed.


It's just difficult for me, as someone who's really never needed to place much faith or emphasis in the theories and facts, to accept it as infallible.

It is not infallible. Science always holds open the possibility that the theory is incomplete. In the case of Cosmology and the origin of the universe, no one clamis the physics is complete yet. But science rests on the principle that the mechanisms of the universe are knowable. So they will continue to work on it.


I can see why some scientists and physicists would need to press the issue, as their reputation and livelihoods may very well depend on their answer. Luckily, though, these restrictions don't apply in my profession(s).

I don't think it is livelihood and reputation that drives scientists. Those factors drive all people to some degree, but I think scientists mostly just want to know.


I'd love to know beyond a shadow of a doubt - without theories or speculation, just the facts - exactly what happened in the beginning (and "wtf happened before" :)). I'm just not sure that I'll find out in this lifetime... but I'm fine with that, too.

We might never know beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened at the exact moment of the Big Bang, but we have faith that we could know. As for "before" I think it will be a long time before we will understand that. It's hard to even have a concept of "before" when even time itself began at that moment. What happened before time began? Where was everything before space existed? We don't even have ways to ask those questions that make sense.

[Mr. Clandestine]

If you believe these two...

Man, are you kidding me? I log on frequently just to deliberately find posts by these two. Never fails to brighten my day! :D


We might never know beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened at the exact moment of the Big Bang, but we have faith that we could know. As for "before" I think it will be a long time before we will understand that. It's hard to even have a concept of "before" when even time itself began at that moment. What happened before time began? Where was everything before space existed? We don't even have ways to ask those questions that make sense.

Very true. We don't have ways to accurately address many of these questions, but that's certainly not going to prevent us from trying. These topics always prove to be mind expanding, even if no solid conclusions can be reached... they're still relevant, and still a lot of fun to discuss.

Take care! ;)

[boaz]

this may have been mentioned in this thread already, but i believe there is one theory that the big bang happens over and over again. we have a big bang, the universe expands for few gazillion years, then it slows and starts to retract until it is again is one large mass of energy, at which point it explodes again, and batta bing batta boom, a big bang happens. thus time is recycled, as is all things in nature. :stoned:

[stinkyattic]

This is an excellent theory! All the universe is the result of a cosmic orgasm. After an delicious dinner, a good bottle of wine, some soft music, warm candle light, nice foreplay, and some sweet, sweet lovin' the universe just "came" into existence. Our existence will last until the sheets are washed..
^^^^Siggy material right there man. I might have to make some room!^^^^

Your theory reminds me of this hysterical pr0n I watched last night- I think it was called 'Sex Trek'- think Saturday Night Live Star Trek spoof sketch with worse acting, cheaper sets, and even CHEAPER fake boobs- You've got to see it.

Being a devout follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I am going for visualizing the Big Bang occurring after a nice meal of Campanelle al carciofo, a Sylvester Stallone movie, and a nice bottle of Chianti... :D

[dragonrider]

Man, are you kidding me? I log on frequently just to deliberately find posts by these two. Never fails to brighten my day! :D


They do keep it entertaining, don't they?


^^^^Siggy material right there man. I might have to make some room!^^^^

Your theory reminds me of this hysterical pr0n I watched last night- I think it was called 'Sex Trek'- think Saturday Night Live Star Trek spoof sketch with worse acting, cheaper sets, and even CHEAPER fake boobs- You've got to see it.

Being a devout follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I am going for visualizing the Big Bang occurring after a nice meal of Campanelle al carciofo, a Sylvester Stallone movie, and a nice bottle of Chianti... :D

Ha ha! Glad you liked the "theory" --- it was your and P4B's idea taken to it's absurd conclusion.

As for "Sex Trek", that sounds like something right up my alley. I like all things Trek, especially with extra "cheese."

[boaz]

wtf happened before the big bang?

Dinner and a show.:pimp:
:D

[snowblind]

Current theory is that the universe actually occupies 11 dimensions, which with the combination of string theory help explain how gravity has such a little effect on our universe, quantumly and plantry. That gravity could itself exist outside of our viewable universe and bleed in. They are trying to show this at CERN by the creation of black holes that are no bigger than an atom, when particles are collieded.

It is then thought that there are many many universes all stacked next to one another and they pop into and out of existence like bubbles being blown, but WITHOUT someone blowing.

That time is simply a vector and that in the grand scheme of things it is just a human ideal not a universal constant microcosmically. However marocosmically it is the only constant, has always been and always will.

I havn't read everything that people have posted and if i have reiterated what someone has already said then i apologise. I also dont want to get drawn into a wider god debate, if you choose to belive what you believe, thats cool just dont cite it at me. It doesnt work.

[boaz]

... thus time is recycled, as is all things in nature. :stoned:

i swear i thought i had just pulled that out my ... :stoned:

just went back and started reading this thread and apparently GateKeeper777 came up with this idea years back and submitted it to JPL and NASA. that is wild :smokin: thanks for the link, i'm going to read in now.

[snowblind]

based on your idea, of accepting what is around and not looking any further. we would still be living in caves and painting on walls. maybe not even that far, maybe we wouldnt have climed out of the primordial soup. Humans explore, discover and conquer. it is human nature, it is in our make up to know.

citing linkin park is not the wisest of moves in a debate on the universe. whilst i respect mike shinoda to the upmost. he dont know

[king of the world]

Wow, forgot all about this thread lol. I have been watching a lot of "through the wormhole" episodes on Youtube lately, and it explains a lot about how the universe works.

But I'm still unsure wtf happened before the big bang lol.

I'm definitely not a big believer in the multiple universe theory though.